PRIVATE BUSINESS

HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill (By Order)

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Fire Prevention

Andrew Miller: What steps the Government plan to take to reduce the risk of death and injury through fire prevention.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government's plans are based on targets to reduce the number of accidental deaths from fire in the home by 20 per cent. and incidents of arson by 10 per cent. by 2010. Fire prevention was made a statutory duty for all fire authorities as part of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. I am pleased to advise the House that last year's figures for deaths showed a 45-year low. The fire service is to be commended for the recent reductions and encouraged to continue making our communities safer, year on year.

Andrew Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he specifically consider the issues around Cheshire? He will be aware that my constituents take fire safety very seriously, for reasons of the proximity of the petrochemical industry. Will he help my constituents by putting into perspective what he says about the national picture by including Cheshire? Can he describe how successful Cheshire has been in achieving those goals?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As my hon. Friend suggests, modernising the fire service is a challenging task. Cheshire fire and rescue service, led by Chief Fire Officer Steve McGuirk, has been at the forefront of many positive, new initiatives, which include supporting our programme of home fire risk visits for the most vulnerable, installing some 10,000 free smoke alarms and pioneering innovative working with young people, including young offenders, as well as dealing with the industrial risk pertinent to the locality. I am sure that Cheshire fire and rescue authority is grateful to my hon. Friend for his full support in making the county a safer place to live and work.

Andrew Stunell: May I congratulate you on your return to the Chair, Mr. Speaker? We are delighted to see you.
	The Minister will know that three schools a day suffer fire damage in this country. Most of those fires involve arson and most are started by pupils. The increasing number of them started in school time are putting more children's lives at risk. Will the Minister now require all new and extended schools to have a sprinkler system installed to safeguard against that risk?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Department is very well aware of the increasing risk to schools from arson and accidental fires. Using building regulations approved document B, we have been consulting on the installation of sprinklers generally. The Department for Education and Skills is in the lead in considering building bulletin 100 and a revision of the provision of sprinklers in schools. Its consultation will conclude later this year, and we are looking forward to that to find out whether we can move forward on this very important issue.

Phyllis Starkey: Retained firefighters play a very valuable role in the fire and safety service, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister consider ways in which retained firefighters could play a much stronger role in fire prevention, as well as in firefighting?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Retained firefighters cover some 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom. A retained firefighters working party was set up by the Department and the Chief Fire Officers Association last year. There were 51 recommendations, as I think that she is aware, on how the retained fire service can participate better in community fire safety, as well as on improving the position of retained firefighters. That review is being examined. The recommendations are being taken forward, and I am sure that they will improve the lot of the retained fire service and its ability to contribute to fire safety in general.

Philip Hollobone: With regard to the Department's fire control project, what chance has the Minister had to liaise with those in Fire Brigades Union region 6 in the east midlands who have written to regional MPs to say:
	"We still believe that the Fire Control project has a high risk of project failure because of the reliance on untried technology"?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I believe that I have probably written to the hon. Gentleman directly, and he may recall that I said in my correspondence that the quote that the Fire Brigades Union is using is taken out of context from an analysis of an initial examination of the regional fire control project. We are fully supportive of the regional control project. We believe that the FBU's misgivings are badly placed. The first three control rooms are under construction. We are pushing ahead with the scheme, which will provide a much more efficient control, communications and mobilisation system for the fire and rescue service, and we believe that it will be online by 2009.

Caroline Spelman: May I also say how pleased I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker? The Minister may be aware of two recent serious arson attacks at schools in my local authority area, but far from being isolated cases, a report published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister last year admitted that the number of deliberate fires rose by 40 per cent. between 1998 and 2002. Why, then, have the Government cut their target for reducing the number of deliberate fires from 30 per cent. to just 10 per cent. by 2010? Is that not an admission of defeat?

Jim Fitzpatrick: On the contrary. The hon. Lady acknowledged that her statistics on arson attacks relate to 2002, but the latest figures from last year demonstrate that fewer than 100,000 arson attacks were committed—26 per cent. below the 10 per cent. reduction target that we set for 2010. We have set ambitious but realistic targets to deal with arson right across the piece. It is a combined effort between ourselves and the Home Office through the arson taskforce and we are making good progress. In that regard, the fire and rescue service and local authorities should be commended.

Traveller Sites

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss Traveller sites.

Yvette Cooper: The Department is working closely with the Local Government Association on Gypsy and Traveller sites. I met the Local Government Association in February and September, and officials in the Gypsy and Traveller unit met the LGA earlier this month. We expect to continue regular discussions.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister recall the Deputy Prime Minister saying that when it comes to allocating Traveller sites and issuing enforcement proceedings against illegal Travellers, the views of local councils should prevail? Why does her Department often overrule local councils, particularly in the case of the Crays Hill site at Billericay? When it comes to a sensitive issues such as Traveller sites, surely the views of local people and local democracy should prevail.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual cases. I hope that he would also recognise that if we are to deal with difficult problems relating to unauthorised sites, which cause huge distress for local communities, we must do so in a balanced and sensible way. That means providing more alternative appropriate sites to deal with the shortage and improving enforcement. We are working closely with local councils and the LGA across the country. We have already offered Basildon help to find alternative sites, but the council has to acknowledge some responsibility as well.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the plan for more sites, but has my hon. Friend discussed with the LGA or local councils the tenancy rights of Gypsies and Travellers? Does she support greater security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers who are on official sites?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We recognise that that is an important issue, which has also been raised by court cases. We will be looking further into the matter, but I have to say that our priority at the moment is ensuring an increase in the number of sites to address the shortage and improving enforcement on inappropriate sites.

James Gray: The Deputy Prime Minister told us that one of the criteria for deciding whether to evict illegal encampments at places such as Minety in my constituency is the degree to which proper provision has been made elsewhere in the country. By what mechanism can the county judge whether proper provision is being made, given that most of the Gypsies are coming in from Ireland, Poland and elsewhere? How can we judge the requirements and decide whether sufficient sites are being provided?

Yvette Cooper: We think that local authorities need to carry out proper needs assessments for Gypsy and Traveller sites just as they do for housing accommodation more widely. We have set out detailed guidance for local authorities to help them to achieve that and I would be pleased to send a copy to the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it would be helpful. The problem of unauthorised sites and site shortages has increased since the Conservatives abolished the duty to provide sites in the first place.

Derek Wyatt: There is a desperate need for more sites in Kent. Is there a time scale for Kent county council to nominate sites for Gypsies who want to live on them permanently?

Yvette Cooper: We hope that local authorities would already be starting work to identify appropriate sites. That is an important way of removing some of the pressures, tensions and the real difficulties that we see with unauthorised sites. We would hope that local authorities would do that through the planning process—the issue is partly about identifying private sites as well as publicly provided sites—that is under way at the moment. I am happy to give my hon. Friend further details of the planning timetables in his area.

Housing Market Renewal and Regeneration Zone Boards

Paul Farrelly: What progress is being made on the planned merger of the housing market renewal and regeneration zone boards in north Staffordshire.

John Prescott: On behalf of Labour Members, Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to those welcoming your return to the Chamber?
	Partners in north Staffordshire have made good progress on achieving closer integration between the regeneration work undertaken by the renewal pathfinder and the regeneration zone. To date, they have established a joint commissioning sub-board and a joint development team. The expectation is that this will lead to the establishment of a single merged board in the near future.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the £67.5 million of second-stage housing market renewal funding, which is really making a difference in north Staffordshire. There are, however, still issues about joined-up delivery of regeneration locally, which also takes in regional generation zones and our regional development agency. Will he therefore be prepared to meet me, other north Staffordshire MPs and colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry to see how we can improve delivery in the future for the benefit of all the people of north Staffordshire?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. By 2008 we will be spending £1.2 billion on the pathfinder programme, which has been very successful. I would be very happy to meet him and to talk to the DTI, which has direct concern for matters concerning the regional development agencies. If he and his hon. Friends contact me, I am sure that we will be prepared to discuss the issues with him.

Alistair Burt: The acceptability of the housing market renewal initiative and the pathfinder scheme in north Staffordshire is based on its moderate scale and its sensible balance between demolition and refurbishment, and those two factors are missing in the Liverpool pathfinder scheme. When will the Deputy Prime Minister react to the growing criticisms about Liverpool, which have been repeated in the Audit Commission's concerns and which are denying the scheme the support of the public and his own MPs? Between us, does he not think that the more modest north Staffordshire scheme is a rather better model to be following?

John Prescott: No. The hon. Gentleman's basic criticism is of the Merseyside pathfinder scheme, but let me make it clear that the whole programme of £1.2 billion in payments for the nine pathfinder schemes up until 2008 will refurbish 30,000 houses, have a new build of 15,000 houses and lead to the demolition of only 10,000 houses, which is a small but necessary part of the programme. In Liverpool, 50 per cent. of the population have moved out of the area concerned, so it is not surprising that an awful lot of low-quality houses are empty there.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the criticism, but the answer to that comes from the residents themselves. When they gave their response to an unfair article by Simon Jenkins, they said about their houses:
	"They are now unfit as homes for families who deserve better. The campaigners, conservationists and critics don't have to deal with 125-year-old properties that are damp, decaying and expensive to heat—let alone with collapsed Victorian sewerage systems, now overridden with rats."
	The people living there are pressing us to get on with the programme.

Joan Walley: May I say to my right hon. Friend that I really welcome the £67.5 million that we have for housing renewal in north Staffordshire? Further to the reply that he just gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), will he, when looking at the talks that need to take place with the DTI, also consider that the way in which local authorities deal with their single regeneration budgets needs to be part of the delivery mechanism? We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build and renovate homes and provide new jobs side by side in north Staffordshire. We want him to help us really lead on how we can deliver to areas that have lost so many jobs in the recent past.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point about two bodies. One is dealing with jobs and regeneration and the other is dealing with homes, and it is important that we get the best co-operation between them. I know that she and other Members from north Staffordshire have been clear about meeting Ministers to discuss this issue, and I would be delighted to take up her offer. When she comes along with her friends, we can have that discussion.

Community Fire Safety Strategy

Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on his Department's community fire safety strategy.

Phil Woolas: We are providing fire and rescue authorities in England with £25 million for home fire risk checks and making a further £11.4 million available to support their fire prevention work. We are continuing national awareness campaigns and providing new fire safety education and teaching material for all schoolchildren.

Andrew Dismore: May I welcome the Government's emphasis on fire prevention, but may I also raise the future of the National Community Fire Safety Centre, the strategic body for planning and developing community fire safety initiatives? With only one staff member now in post out of the original four, will my hon. Friend confirm whether it is to continue and, if so, where it will be based and what staffing levels and terms of reference it will have?

Phil Woolas: I can confirm that the National Community Fire Safety Centre will continue. I met officials yesterday about that very point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Minister with responsibility for fire services, who has promoted the work of the centre, most recently on the "See Hear" programme on national television. The   centre is staffed by an official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but works in conjunction with fire and rescue services and local authorities throughout the country.

Michael Fabricant: I have some good news—[Interruption.] I have. The Staffordshire fire service not only provides poorer areas with free smoke alarms, it provides an exchange service for electric blankets. The Minister will know that, quite often, it is electric blankets that cause house fires. Are those schemes being taken up by other fire services and, if not, why not?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the good news. I can confirm that other fire and rescue authorities are taking up those schemes. Our strategy, which is supported by fire authorities across the political spectrum, is to move more towards prevention. May I use this opportunity to give the House even more good news, which I know hon. Members will welcome? Accidental fire deaths in the home nationally are down. There were 219 deaths in the 12 months to 30 June 2005, compared with 277 tragic deaths a year earlier—a fall of 21 per cent. That is part of a six-year downward trend. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.

Thurrock Development Corporation

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on the work of the Thurrock development corporation since its inception.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend will know that I visited Thurrock at the end of February to see the work of the development corporation. He and I are due to meet shortly to discuss that. The urban development corporation now has negotiations under way on site acquisitions to support about 6,000 new jobs and 5,000 new homes. It is also supporting individual infrastructure projects ranging from Rainham marshes to Grays police station.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me this week. I welcome that opportunity. Will she paint a picture of what answer I could expect about the progress made if I were to ask the same question 12 months from now?

Yvette Cooper: Much of the progress that will need to be made relates to the site acquisitions that need to underpin some of the major developments. We have to be realistic: some of those developments will take time. However, the message that I have given to the board of the urban development corporation is that it also needs to increase its community engagement and consultation so that local people are closely involved in the development of the plans, some of which will be delivered faster than others.

Michael Gove: The regeneration of Thurrock is a key aspect of the development of the Thames Gateway, but the Labour party's own think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has warned that, in driving forward the regeneration of Thurrock, the Government have not done enough to consult local communities, guarantee infrastructure and respect environmental concerns. What steps are Ministers taking to take local people with them in pressing ahead with much-needed development?

Yvette Cooper: I am glad that Members on the Opposition Front Bench now support the Thames Gateway, given that they opposed it more than a year ago. I agree that we need investment in infrastructure and support for the environment, including investment in things such as the Rainham marshes. However, investment in infrastructure costs money and as long as the hon. Gentleman's party continues to oppose the principle of the planning gain supplement and have a third fiscal rule, it simply could not fund the regeneration that the Thames Gateway needs.

Housing Market Renewal Initiative

John Whittingdale: What representations he has received on the housing market renewal initiative in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: We have had a range of representations on the four housing market renewal pathfinders in the north-west, most of them supporting the proposals put forward by the four pathfinders in the region.

John Whittingdale: Despite the Minister's answer, is he aware that when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently visited the Welsh streets area of Liverpool, the first thing that we saw was posters in local residents' windows saying "Save our homes"? Instead of investing in refurbishment, why are the Government determined to press ahead with the mass demolition of many homes that are rising in value, of historical importance and greatly loved by the people who live in them?

David Miliband: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee will look at the facts before publishing their report. Refurbishment and new build in the Liverpool pathfinder area to which he refers represented 1,911 houses in 2005–06. The demolition that he says is happening all over the place represented 39 houses. I hope that he will stick to the facts, rather than the rhetoric.

Andrew Gwynne: I congratulate New East Manchester on the work that it is doing in an area that borders my constituency. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the problems surrounding buy-to-let and absentee private landlords that afflicted areas such as east Manchester are now arising in areas such as Denton and Reddish, although they are being resolved in adjacent renewal areas? What efforts are being made to ensure that the problems are tackled and not merely displaced to neighbouring areas?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the balance among new build, refurbishment and demolition. I know about the New East Manchester project and agree that it has done some outstanding work. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will want to examine the specific issue of buy-to-let in the area.

Building Regulations

Andrew Selous: What assessment he has made of the impact of building regulations on the environment; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: The new part L of the building regulations that has come into force this month should improve energy efficiency standards by 40 per cent. compared with 2002. We propose to consult this summer on improvements to water efficiency.

Andrew Selous: Why do the Government not make higher environmental standards compulsory for new homes, given that companies such as Bedfordshire-based Agrifibre Technologies can build highly energy efficient homes for as little as £40,000 each?

Yvette Cooper: We are making higher energy efficiency standards compulsory. From this April, it will be compulsory to increase the energy efficiency standards in new homes by 40 per cent. compared with 2002. The hon. Gentleman might not be listening, but that is compulsory. It is a real and tangible policy to deliver energy efficiency for warm homes, not just warm words.

David Taylor: While, of course, energy efficiency and the reduction of carbon gas emissions are significantly important for environmental reasons, does the Minister remember our correspondence about the chimney industry in North-West Leicestershire? An inflexible approach on the implementation of revised building regulations will lead to the loss of the chimney from new British homes, which will be aesthetically damaging. A hermetically sealed home is not good in health terms, and the proposal will be economically disadvantageous to numerous firms in North-West Leicestershire.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises the matter on behalf of firms in his constituency. We have examined the situation in detail and think that there are ways in which the industry can respond. We also think that it is  important to make such energy efficiency improvements.

Regional Assemblies

Philip Davies: What powers and responsibilities the Government have transferred to regional assemblies in the last two years.

David Miliband: Further to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 8 March, I have now written to the eight regional assemblies outside London confirming that I am content for them to assume responsibility for the regional housing board following the recommendations of the Barker review.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for his reply. What lessons has he learned from the result of the referendum in the north-east on regional assemblies? As a consequence of the result, will he consider not tinkering with regional assemblies or giving them more powers, but abolishing them altogether, which is what the public want?

David Miliband: The lesson that we learned from the north-east referendum result was that people did not want elected regional assemblies, which is why we are not proposing them. However, the role of local councillors in speaking up for their areas on the regional assemblies is important. The hon. Gentleman would do better in his area to follow the words of the shadow Chancellor, who said that we want houses where we need to build them, rather than opposing them on his website all the time.

Coalfields Regeneration Trust

Michael Clapham: What assessment he has made of the impact of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on coalfield renewal; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has made a huge impact in coalfield communities, supporting local community campaigns and skills and training as well.

Michael Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and, in particular, pay tribute to the work of the Deputy Prime Minister in bringing forward the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still much more to be done and so there is a role for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust well into the future?

Yvette Cooper: I agree that there is still an awful lot to do, but we are now seeing growth in jobs and income, and support for local communities in our coalfield areas which, frankly, were neglected by the Opposition for far too long.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nick Palmer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 April.

Tony Blair: First of all, Mr. Speaker, welcome back.
	Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the family of Lieutenant Richard Palmer of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, who was killed in Iraq at the weekend. He was doing an essential job for the security of the region and the wider world. We owe him and others who have lost their lives a tremendous debt of gratitude, and we pay tribute to their dedication and to their courage.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in the House. I will have further such meetings later today.

Nick Palmer: Now that everyone has suddenly gone green, will the Prime Minister report on progress in achieving consensus on the Government's climate change levy, which reduces carbon emissions by 14 million tonnes every year?

Tony Blair: The climate change levy will be responsible for over a quarter of the total expected UK emissions since 1990, so it is of vital importance. It is completely inconsistent for anyone to say that they care about reducing CO 2 emissions but oppose the climate change levy. May I point out that this country will not merely meet its Kyoto targets but meet them by double the amount?

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr.   Speaker, and welcome back. May I start by agreeing with the Prime Minister about Lieutenant Richard Palmer, who died serving his country? Many people will have heard the moving tribute from his father, and we should recognise the family's courage too.
	The heads of four children's hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, have warned that vital specialist children's services may be lost this year. They have been battling to get that message through to the Department of Health for 18 months. Why does the Prime Minister think that that has happened?

Tony Blair: There is a negotiation over the tariff. There is a single tariff in the payment-by-results system throughout the NHS, which is a necessary part of the reform. All those four hospitals have received a very substantial increase in funding over the past few years—that has led to extra numbers of nurses and consultants—but it is important that they, like everyone else in the health service, live within their means. I have no doubt at all that the negotiation over the tariff will continue in subsequent years.

David Cameron: These hospitals have told us that that they will have to make deep cuts, and anyone who knows about them, including Great Ormond Street, knows that they have to deal with complex and difficult cases. Is not this just a case of mismanagement?
	Let me turn to another example of mismanagement. The Chancellor's guru, Derek Wanless, has admitted that a far higher proportion of the increase in spending on the health service has been swallowed by staff costs than he intended. The contracts for GPs and consultants have turned out to be much more expensive than the NHS expected. Who is to blame for that piece of mismanagement?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that GPs, nurses or consultants are overpaid. [Interruption.] I am very pleased that there is a difference between the two political parties. Incidentally, it is nonsense that lots of GPs are earning £250,000 a year—the actual average is under £100,000—but it is true that our GPs are now the best paid in Europe. I think that that is good. It is true that we have increased nurses' pay—I think that that is also good. It is also true that as a result of the dedication of nurses and doctors we are reducing waiting times in the health service, reducing waiting lists and improving cancer and cardiac services. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that overall the proportion of money spent on pay in the national health service has not risen in the past eight years but fallen?

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister thinks that those contracts were well negotiated, he is the only person in Britain who does. Why has Professor Aidan Halligan, who is the nation's No. 2 doctor, said that the NHS suffers from "a leadership void", that it is "rudderless" and that
	"real reform has been a deceit"?
	He has spent years in the Department of Health, so why does he say those things?

Tony Blair: If that is what he has said, I entirely disagree with him. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a great mystery about what has happened to the money that has gone into the NHS, so let me tell him where it has gone in his area. In 1997, more than 10,000 people in the Thames Valley strategic health authority area waited more than six months; today, the figure is 12. In 1997, more than 2,500 patients waited longer than 13 weeks for their out-patient appointment; today, the figure is none. There are also 3,000 more nurses, 162 more GPs—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell them that they are paid too much—and 400 more consultants. A £155 million private finance initiative scheme is under way to relocate services provided at Radcliffe infirmary; there is a £112 million scheme to provide cancer services; £29 million has been allocated for the expansion of cardiac services; and £37 million has been provided for the redevelopment of the Nuffield orthopaedic surgery. The money has gone on cutting waiting lists and waiting times, improving cancer and cardiac services and providing more nurses and doctors. It is money well spent, and every penny piece of it was opposed by the Conservative party.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to come to my constituency, he is welcome. I will take him to Moorview hospital for the mentally ill, which is earmarked for closure under his Government. Perhaps he will explain to the staff and the patients why it will be shut. He could spend some time trying to find an NHS dentist, although he would have more luck looking for Lord Lucan riding on Shergar.
	It is not only top doctors who have made such points, but Britain's most senior nurse, Beverley Malone, who has said that
	"the Government is in denial"
	and that
	"patients are suffering and nurses are losing their jobs".
	The truth is that jobs are being lost because of Government mismanagement and a failure of leadership. Did he not begin his prime ministership by promising 24 hours to save the NHS? Why is he ending it presiding over the biggest administrative chaos in the NHS's history?

Tony Blair: What ridiculous nonsense: 50 per cent. of the deficit is in 7 per cent. of organisations, which should suggest, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that the majority of organisations are in surplus or breaking even. No matter how much money is put in, it is important that there are proper rules for financial accountability, which we are introducing. It is absurd to say that the NHS has not improved. For example, look at what has happened to cardiac care in the past few years, because many people used to die while waiting for heart operations. When we took office, people used to wait for an average of a year—some people waited for two years—to get a cataract operation, but the wait is now less than three months. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about nurses, and there are almost 190,000 extra front-line staff in the NHS today who are better paid than ever before. Whatever happens, the Labour party believes in building up the NHS; the Tory party believes in undermining it.

Michael Meacher: Can the Prime Minister seriously consider an attack on Iran on the ground that it continues to develop dual-use enriched uranium, when India, which, unlike Iran, has never signed the non-proliferation treaty, hasjust been given the go-ahead by the Bush Administration to advance its fast breeder nuclear reactor programme, which is ideally suited for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute assurance that he will not support any attack on Iran?

Tony Blair: First, I support the arrangement between the United States and India, which is a very different proposition from Iran. Secondly, I have said consistently that Iran is not Iraq and that nobody is talking about a military invasion. However, I must say to my right hon. Friend that when the President of Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and when young people are signing up to be suicide bombers directed at US, UK and Israeli targets with at least the tacit acceptance of, and possibly at the instigation of, the Iranian regime, this is not the time to send a message of weakness.

Menzies Campbell: From these Benches, Mr. Speaker, may we offer you a very warm welcome back? I also associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to the friends and family of Lieutenant Palmer.
	Staying on the issue of Iran, the Foreign Secretary has said that military action against Iran would be inconceivable and that to use nuclear weapons would be nuts. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Tony Blair: As I said a moment or two ago and have said constantly, nobody is talking about a military invasion of Iran or military action against Iran. We are taking diplomatic action through the United Nations Security Council. I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) a moment or two ago. Let us be quite clear about what is happening and the reason why Iran is in the news headlines. It is because it is in breach of its international obligations and not co-operating properly with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would have thought that this is the moment for the world to send a clear and united message to the Iranian regime that it has to desist from that and, in particular, to desist from helping and financing terrorist activities around the world and get back into line with its international obligations.

Menzies Campbell: But it is very important to know what that clear and united message is. Yesterday, President Bush said that all options remain on the table. Is there any military option, including nuclear weapons, that the Prime Minister would rule out?

Tony Blair: As I said, nobody is talking about these things. In respect of the President of the United States, let me just say this. The President of the United States is not going to take any option off the table—neither, incidentally, do I suspect that any President of the United States would at this moment in time. That is perfectly sensible for all the reasons that have been given many, many times by the President himself. However, we are actually pursuing a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iran. That diplomatic solution is now being taken forward in the UN Security Council. There will be a report back by Mr. el-Baradei, I think within the next couple of weeks, and then the UN Security Council has got to sit down and work out what action to take. But it is important that we take action if Iran continues to be in breach of its obligations.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Labour councillors in Portsmouth wanted pensioners to have free bus travel at all times of day, but the Tories and the Liberal Democrats voted together to offer free off-peak bus travel or free parking vouchers. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is an example of both Opposition parties displaying chamaeleon qualities by pretending to be green but in fact promoting more use of private cars?

Tony Blair: It will come as no surprise that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. From this Saturday, those aged 60 and over and disabled people will be entitled to free local off-peak bus travel within their local area. That will benefit 11 million people. In addition, the Budget set a commitment for free off-peak national bus travel for every pensioner and disabled person from April 2008. I have no doubt at all that my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is another good reason for voting Labour.

Greg Clark: According to Government figures, 72 per cent. of housing development is now on brownfield sites, but is the Prime Minister aware that two thirds of that figure is accounted for not by brown land but by beautiful, green, environmentally important gardens? Will he join with colleagues on both sides of the House to support my Bill to change the definition of brownfield sites to exclude gardens?

Tony Blair: Of course, the figure of more than 70 per cent. is well up on the figure of just over 50 per cent. that we inherited, according to the same definitions. I know that the Bill has been tabled for Second Reading on 12 May, when Ministers will be in a position to debate the issues in full. They have not yet made a decision on any proposals on changes in regulations that the Bill is seeking to achieve.

Chris Bryant: It must surely have worried every sane and sensible person that yesterday Hamas not only refused to condemn the attack in Tel Aviv, but effectively condoned it. How can the Prime Minister see a way forward so that we can ensure that poverty is tackled in the Palestinian Authority and that civil society is built up, but make it clear that we do not support those who support terrorism?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. We will continue to give the humanitarian assistance that we and others have been giving to the Palestinian people. I think that I am right in saying that Britain is the second largest, or even the largest, bilateral donor to the Palestinian Authority. We will continue that humanitarian help. I hope very much that Hamas realises that those who kill innocent people in this way, by the type of attack that has happened in Tel Aviv, are wicked and irresponsible, but more than that, that they do absolutely nothing to further the process of peace in the middle east or the two-state solution that we all want to see, which is an independent, viable Palestinian state and a secure state of Israel. The only way to do this is through peaceful negotiation.

Nigel Evans: As the Prime Minister prepares to help the police with their inquiries, does he feel that it was ill judged to have accepted a £2 million loan from one of his Ministers? Does not that represent a clear and ongoing conflict of interest for the Prime Minister? Did he declare that interest to his Cabinet Secretary? Does he not agree that the whole thing stinks, and that it is about time that he gave the £2 million back to Lord Sainsbury?

Tony Blair: Lord Sainsbury does a superb job as a Minister and I am proud to have him in the Government.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend revisit the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to try to prevent the kind of electoral abuse that is occurring in Barnsley, where a group of candidates are standing in the local elections as so-called independents, despite the fact that they have registered as a political party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electorate are being misled?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point, but it is also worth paying tribute to what Barnsley council has been doing. It is in the middle of a multi-million pound redevelopment of its town centre and it is investing more than £1,000 a year more per pupil in education. It has also cut crime, particularly domestic burglary and the theft of motor vehicles, by a significant amount in the Barnsley area, so it is doing an excellent job with the resources that it is being given.

David Cameron: The closure of the Ryton plant will be a desperate blow to the 2,300 workers and their families. Does the Prime Minister agree that, once a company has made that kind of decision, the money is best spent not on trying to save old jobs but on training people for new ones? Will he work with the Conservative leaders of Coventry, Rugby and Warwickshire councils to provide the necessary training and other help for those who are losing their jobs?

Tony Blair: First, I express my sadness at the announcement of the closure of the plant and my sympathy to all those people and their families who are affected. We now have a very well tried and well tested set of arrangements for dealing with situations such as this, in which we work with all the relevant stakeholders to ensure that we do our level best not only to find alternative retraining and jobs for those who are displaced by news such as this, but to develop the economy of the region concerned. When such bad news hits the British car industry, however, it is important to recognise that, over all, the industry remains strong, with more than 200,000 jobs, and that it earns about £10 billion a year for this country. However, none of that can take away the dismay at the loss of so many jobs.

David Cameron: But the news comes at the same time as the fact that manufacturing output is now lower than when Labour came to power. Companies are struggling to pay higher national insurance contributions, to repair the damage done to pensions by the Chancellor's tax raid, and to cope with the highest tax burden in British history. All these things are making Britain less competitive. In the long-term interests of the work force at Ryton and elsewhere, will the Prime Minister take action to start reversing that decline?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of what is happening. Let us be clear: there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs in all the major developed economies. Let us take the car industry as an example. Mini, Land Rover and Toyota have all raised production in recent times. The economic stability that has been provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor through low interest rates and high levels of employment—I think we have the highest employment rate of any G7 country at the moment—has given us a very good, strong record on jobs and on unemployment. It is inevitable that there will be job losses from time to time, but, as I understand it, Peugeot has also taken out two shifts at its French plant, resulting in the loss of about 1,500 jobs, and one shift at its Spanish plant. I suspect that this is to do with the global market, and with the company concerned, rather than with the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mark Todd: When faced with an angry mob in Iraq two years ago, the first thought of my constituent, Russell Aston, and five other military policemen was to deal with the safety of those whom they were training to be police officers and their helpers. They did that successfully. They then responded non-violently to the mob. Does the Prime Minister believe that there are adequate ways of recognising the ultimate sacrifice that some of our servicemen make when carrying out peacekeeping roles?

Tony Blair: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to each of those members of the Royal Military Police who lost their lives in June 2003. They were immensely brave people who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and the security of the wider world, and we owe them an immense debt of gratitude. As he knows, any awards would be made not by Government but by the military. I agree, however, that it is always important that we consider ways of marking the contribution made by such gallant people in extremely difficult circumstances in which they paid with their lives for the benefit and security of the wider world.

Phil Willis: May I take the opportunity, after the local elections, to invite the Prime Minister to come to Harrogate theatre, where the play, "Cut and Run", is being performed? He will know that that is a classic farce about the running of the national health service. Will he then visit with me the local three-star foundation hospital, which has delivered on every target that he and his Government have set and has exercised financial prudence every year in balancing its budget? This year, however, it must close a ward of 31 surgical beds and a unit that deals with the rehabilitation of people with disabilities. How will this period of boom and bust help my constituents? If he cannot help to save those two wards, will he join the cast?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the individual position of the hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is right, however, that that hospital has met all the targets for the reduction of waiting lists and waiting times, and that it has received substantial increases in investment. As a result of that, as I understand it, it is employing many more nurses, doctors and consultants. Whatever amount of money any Government put into the national health service, hospital trusts will have to live within their means. Otherwise, we will not have the proper systems and financial accountability in place. I am happy to examine the individual circumstances that he mentioned, but most people in his area would accept, as in other constituencies, that the national health service is in a much better state than it was eight or nine years ago.

Kate Hoey: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the proposed changes to the funding of adult education? Is he aware that those changes will mean that the types of course that wonderful colleges such as Morley in my constituency can offer will be severely restricted, and that many thousands and millions of people whose lives have been enriched by adult education will be affected by those changes?

Tony Blair: We will consider that carefully. Obviously, there must be a balance in relation to how we spend money to ensure the most effective use for the work force that we want to build. I am also aware of my hon. Friend's point about leisure activities and the ways in which people enhance and enrich their lives through such courses. There always has been and will be a balance between the amount of money that we put into that and the amount that we put into the skills of the work force.

Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister has said previously that he would be surprised if waiting times for hearing tests and hearing aids were longer now than when he came into office. Will he ask his Cabinet colleagues who have English constituencies to indicate now if they know that their waiting times have grown longer in the past 12 to 18 months? Would he like to come down to Worthing, where waiting times are double what they were when he came into office, and explain to a well-run hospital and a financially prudent primary care trust why they must suddenly and unexpectedly save £1 million a month?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the particular issue of hearing, but waiting times and waiting lists for patients for operations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency must have fallen dramatically. In relation to the numbers of people employed, in his area—[Interruption.] I can only tell him that the facts that I have are—[Hon. Members: "What about reality?"] Well, this is the reality—2,000 more nurses is a lot of reality even for the hon. Gentleman. Yes, there have been overspends in his area, which will have to be dealt with. However, that would be the case no matter what amount of money we put in. It has to be done. If we end up with a system that is more financially secure, that is to the benefit of people in his area, not to their disbenefit.

Meg Hillier: In Hackney, we have seen GCSE results improve dramatically in recent years. We already have one city academy, and there are three more in the pipeline. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that 53 per cent. of children in one of the poorest boroughs in the country are not achieving means that the city academy programme is essential for those children in the poorest neighbourhoods in Britain?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. The city academy programme is delivering for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged kids in the whole of our country. Children who were ignored for years under the Conservatives are being given the chance of a decent education. There is one test: are parents trying to get their children into those schools, or out of them? They are trying to get their children into them, and for good reason.

Michael Jack: The World Health Organisation told us recently that in Zimbabwe female life expectancy is now the lowest in the world at 34. Inflation is running at 913 per cent, and someone can be arrested for selling tomatoes on a street corner. In the light of the Prime Minister's commitment to the Commission for Africa, can he explain why western diplomatic efforts appear to have been impotent to date in dealing with the human tragedy that is continuing to unfold in Zimbabwe?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his analysis. The question is, what is the solution? I am afraid that the solutions are necessarily limited. Yes, what the regime in Zimbabwe is doing is a disgrace. People are suffering in a country that is potentially wealthy. We as a nation have had to give humanitarian assistance and food aid to people in circumstances in which, if the country were properly run, they could be looked after properly. The only issue is what we can do about it. What we are doing in this country is our very best to ensure that the right diplomatic pressure is put on the Zimbabwean regime to change, but I am afraid that there is a limit to what we can do.
	I believe that while Zimbabwe remains as it is, it casts a shadow over that whole part of southern Africa. It is a tragedy, particularly—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says—for the people concerned.

David Borrow: The district councils in Lancashire have failed to reach agreement on a Lancashire-wide bus pass scheme. I am told by the county council that the Government provided enough money for such a scheme to be established, but that some district councils have spent money on things other than pensioner bus passes. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter and ensure that the money provided by the Chancellor is spent for the purpose for which it was intended?

Tony Blair: It certainly should be spent for that purpose. I gather than we have put about £350 million into the scheme and it is there to benefit people. There is absolutely no reason why those councils should not take action to benefit pensioners in the way that they wish and ensure that the money that has been invested is used for the purposes for which it was allocated.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Prime Minister offer a credible response to the following question? When his fundraiser-in-chief and tennis partner was offered a £1.5 million donation to the Labour party, why did he refuse it in favour of a £1.5 million loan?

Tony Blair: I have no intention of giving a running commentary on this, but I can say that I am delighted that so many successful people support the Labour party—and quite right too.

Hospitals (North Staffordshire)

Paul Farrelly: If he will make a statement on progress with the Fit for the Future plans for the new hospital in north Staffordshire.

Tony Blair: I understand that the scheme is being reviewed by the local health economy to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term, but on any basis there will be a substantial investment in additional facilities.

Paul Farrelly: The Prime Minister will know of the deficit at my local hospital, where 1,200 jobs are now at risk. The long-planned new hospital is desperately needed to tackle that deficit and the inefficiencies involved in working on a split-site old Victorian complex whose foundation stone was laid back in 1866. Having seen NHS managers last week, will the Prime Minister agree to meet Labour Members as well to ensure that any cuts in response to deficits, or any scaling down of new hospital plans, will not harm patient care?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the scheme, which is worth about £400 million. He is also absolutely right to draw attention to the need to end the arrangement with the split site. [Interruption.] Contrary to what Conservative Members are shouting, it is extremely important for us to make such changes in the national health service. Otherwise, as the chief executive of my hon. Friend's trust explained at the Downing street seminar 10 days ago, we will not be able to take the measures necessary to restore proper financial balance and accountability, and to provide a better service for my hon. Friend's constituents in the long run. Once this scheme goes ahead, there will be greatly improved facilities in north Staffordshire, which will benefit patients and the local health care system.

Engagements

Michael Connarty: May I ask the Prime Minister to refocus on the middle east and Israel? According to all the United Nations resolutions and common opinion, a safe and secure Israel under a two-state solution must be based on the boundaries of the 1967 Israeli state. Will my right hon. Friend take this matter seriously and argue in his dealings with the Israeli Government that the only way to achieve a two-state solution is to give up land and to return to the boundaries that Israel secured in 1967, with UN support?

Tony Blair: If negotiation proceeded, there would of course be a situation in which land was given up by Israel, and we have always stated our support for the basic UN framework for how that should be done. But I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me that the killing of wholly innocent people in terrorist attacks in, for example, Tel Aviv a couple of days ago, sets back the chance of a proper negotiated solution. I say to the Hamas leadership very clearly that I believe that the whole of the international community stands ready and willing to take forward a negotiated solution on the basis of a fair deal that allows for an independent and viable Palestinian state, provided that, in turn, Hamas are prepared to recognise the state of Israel and to give up violence, which does nothing to make this process work and everything to harm it.

British Overseas Territories

Daniel Kawczynski: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the representation of the British Overseas Territories in the European Union and in Parliament.
	The United Kingdom overseas territories are extremely important, so I am extremely pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), is in his place to listen to me introduce this Bill. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has left—

Michael Fabricant: He has scuttled out.

Daniel Kawczynski: Exactly.
	This Bill is designed to raise the profile of the United Kingdom overseas territories and to modernise our relationship with them. They are unique and very special to us, so I will name them all: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St. Helena, Turk and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, and British Antarctic Territory.
	I remember looking at a map of the British empire as a boy and feeling extremely proud of our imperial history and of the achievement of this small island nation. Today, I am equally proud of those 14 remaining British overseas territories, which are important for two specific reasons. Thanks to the Labour Government, in 2002 the citizens of these areas were granted full British citizenship. So 220,000 British citizens live in these territories, and we have a duty and responsibility to look after their interests and to promote them here and in the European Union. We also derive tremendous military benefits from these territories. Their allowing us to use their territory and their surrounding waters gives us a huge military outreach that greatly exceeds the outreach that we would enjoy from our own country alone. We lease some of the land, of course, to our principal ally, the United States, and gain significant financial benefit from those leases, as well as good will from our number one ally.
	We are not, however, the only European Union country that has overseas territories. The French and Dutch also have overseas territories and they do everything imaginable to help their overseas territories to battle within the EU to secure as much as possible for them—

Philip Davies: Coming out of the EU would help.

Daniel Kawczynski: Well, that is another matter.
	The French and Dutch allow their overseas territories to participate in the elections for their national assemblies and for the European Union Parliament, and provide every assistance for them to lobby effectively in Brussels. As a result, those overseas territories have far more recognition in the EU and secure far more financial assistance than do ours.
	The Bill does not go as far as the French and Dutch models, but it would do two very important things. First, it would give our British overseas territories the ability to have representation here in Parliament in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister would be able to appoint two or three extra peers—[Laughter.] I make no comment on that. Those extra peers would represent all 14 overseas territories. Secondly, the Bill would enable us to provide specific help for our overseas territories through UKRep, the United Kingdom Representative Office in Brussels, to overcome some of the hurdles, in the form of red tape and bureaucracy, that the European Union throws in their way in allocating money to them. The money is there, but every time that they want to draw money from their accounts, the EU throws more red tape at them. The special service from UKRep in Brussels would allow our 14 overseas territories to overcome those hurdles. The 14 overseas territories are affected increasingly by EU law and they need representation there. They cannot rely on second-hand information passed down from the Foreign Office.
	I have met representatives from many of the overseas territories. In fact, this morning I met representatives from the Falkland Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. I was greatly upset that some of them said that independence is "inevitable", because I would hate for us to lose any of the remaining 14 overseas territories. They are extremely important to us strategically and historically.
	I hope that this Bill will reverse the dissatisfaction that some overseas territories feel towards the Foreign Office and how it ignores them and their concerns. We need to show more solidarity with our overseas territories and the Foreign Office needs to work more closely with them in the European Union to maximise their benefits. I ask for support for this Bill. If passed, it would show the UK overseas territories our determination to improve and modernise our relationship with them and keep them within the British family of nations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Daniel Kawczynski, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Tobias Ellwood, Mr. David Jones and Mr. Stephen Crabb.

British Overseas Territories

Daniel Kawczynski accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the representation of the British Overseas Territories in the European Union and in Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 168].

Eightieth Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

Tony Blair: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on the occasion of Her Majesty's eightieth birthday, and to express its appreciation of Her Majesty's unfailing devotion to the duties of State, the Nation and the Commonwealth, and its warmest good wishes for her long continuing health and happiness.
	That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household.
	This week we celebrate the 80th birthday of one of the most respected people of our times, whose sense of duty and service has had a profound impact on our country, the Commonwealth and the world.
	Years before the premature death of her father and her unexpected succession to the throne, the then Princess Elizabeth publicly dedicated her life to the service of her nation, but declared that she would need the support of the country to ensure that she could fulfil that promise. She has, as we know, carried out that pledge through all the changes, both in her life and in this country, with extraordinary grace and dedication, and her people, here and across the Commonwealth, who share in the celebration of her 80th birthday this year, have responded, as she hoped that they would, with their affection and support.
	In a world that has been transformed in her lifetime, she has been a truly remarkable source of constancy and strength. Our country has faced tremendous trials, witnessed the horrors of the second world war and celebrated some extraordinary triumphs in her 80 years. Throughout, as part of the royal family and as the Queen, she has been a reassuring and unifying presence for her people.
	She has also responded to a world that has become smaller and more interdependent than ever by travelling extensively. In all, the Queen has undertaken over 256 official overseas visits to 129 different countries. Her   Majesty shows no sign of slowing down. She has just undertaken her 14th tour of Australia, which included the official opening of the Commonwealth games inMelbourne. She attends hundreds of public engagements every year and is an active patron of over 620 charities and organisations. There is simply no aspect of our national life that she does not have an interest in and a deep understanding of.
	Her Prime Ministers have better reason than most to know and appreciate her knowledge and experience. I am the tenth Prime Minister to serve her. Like each of my predecessors, I am profoundly grateful for her wise counsel. She has superb judgment, an intuitive empathy with people and, above all, an unshakeable and profound sense of duty. It is that sense of duty that motivates her and defines her reign and, since it communicates itself unobtrusively but none the less obviously to her subjects, brings her the love of the people of this country.
	It is difficult in this day and age for the monarchy to balance the natural demands for accessibility and openness with the dignity and majesty of the monarch, but it is a balance that she has struck with immense skill. So I know that I speak for the whole House and, indeed, a grateful nation when I convey to Her Majesty the Queen our best wishes on her 80th birthday and say, "Long may she reign over us."

David Cameron: I am delighted to associate myself and the Opposition with the Prime Minister's generous tribute to Her Majesty. It is entirely merited. The occasion of anyone's 80th birthday is a matter for rejoicing, but this landmark in the life of Queen Elizabeth, who has reigned over our country so wisely and for so long, is a genuine cause for national celebration.
	She has been our queen for 54 years. Through 1,000 years of British history, only Queen Victoria, George III, Henry III and, by a few months, Edward III have sat on the throne for a greater period. As the Prime Minister said, Her Majesty has lived in two centuries through a time of incredible transformation. She served in uniform in the second world war, presided over the dismantling of the empire and Britain's joining of the EU, and witnessed the end of the cold war and the beginning of the new millennium. She has been a rock of stability, calm and good sense in a period of the most turbulent change.
	I had my first meeting as Leader of the Opposition with Her Majesty a few weeks ago. As one tries to explain what one is up to, one is acutely conscious that she has heard it all before and seen it all before. Her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill. Her first Leader of the Opposition was Clement Attlee. I am the 19th Leader of the Opposition the Queen has had to meet; I am sure that, like others, Her Majesty has no doubt noticed that the number has increased all too frequently in recent years. However, she was, as ever, far too polite to point that out.
	To me, the Queen personifies two vital principles. The first is national unity. Many things divide us, but the institution of our monarchy and the integrity with which the Queen has carried out her role over almost six decades bring Britain together. I remember celebrating the silver jubilee in the village where I grew up. As a newly elected Back Bencher, I participated in golden jubilee events across my constituency, as other Members did. The Queen means as much to people of my generation as to those in previous ones, as I know that she will in future.
	As head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty presides over an organisation that includes more than a quarter of the earth's population. That that community of nations has endured and thrived through such a tumultuous period in our world's history is due in no small measure to the Queen herself. She is admired and held in affection by everyone, from the most senior dignitary to the youngest schoolchild.
	The second principle that the Queen embodies is public service. Throughout her reign she has displayed judgment, tolerance and absolute political neutrality. Her life has been one of selfless duty. From the moment she was born, she has lived in the public eye. I cannot think of a single occasion on which Her Majesty has done or said anything that would damage in any way the institution that she embodies. For all of us in public life, she has set the highest standards in every respect.
	In 1947, to mark her 21st birthday, the then Princess Elizabeth addressed the Commonwealth in a radio broadcast from Cape Town. In it, she made a solemn act of dedication to her people. She said:
	"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service."
	Today, almost 60 years later, the whole House, indeed the whole world, can agree on how magnificently that vow has been fulfilled.

Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Her Majesty the Queen on her 80th birthday.
	Her Majesty is not only our head of state; she is the embodiment of the nation. The milestones in her life have been milestones in the lives of many of us as well. I particularly remember how her coronation after the tragic death of King George VI marked the passing of an era and the drawing of a curtain over post-war Britain. Her silver jubilee, and the golden jubilee that followed, were marked by the warmth and affection of the people of Great Britain.
	Her Majesty has truly shown herself to be a steadfast guardian of her people, of the Commonwealth and of our democratic traditions. When we celebrate her birthday, we celebrate the values that have illuminated her life.
	Mr. Speaker, God save the Queen.

Alan Williams: First, my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your return.
	On behalf of many Members who cannot be in the Chamber as they have other parliamentary duties, I offer my sincere good wishes and congratulations to Her Majesty on her 80th birthday. I congratulate her on her generosity in choosing to share the day with others of her subjects who are also 80 on that day and who are at the palace with her at the moment.
	Throughout Her Majesty's long reign, she has meticulously observed the important boundaries between the hereditary monarchy and the rights and powers of the elected House of Commons. We thank her and congratulate her on that. We wish her well. May she long continue in her role.

Ian Paisley: The day we were born is the day we started to grow old. The term usually applies to people of 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100, but the whole of living is one process of growing old. The baby grows old, the child grows old, the youth grows old, the mature person is growing old, and the elderly, like myself, are growing really old.
	Our fathers wrote books that contemplated old age and death, and those books are worth reading. We all must leave this world. That is an unalterable fact. Old age, it has been well said, will be bright if we keep our souls from ageing. Sam Weller remarked of Charles Dickens' Mr. Pickwick:
	"Blest if I don't think his soul was born 25 years after his body."
	He had a young soul. I hope I have a young soul, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are helping yourself to have a younger soul by coming back among us.
	There is a question that all of us must ask today. It is a simple question: are we allowing ourselves to age in the body, but keeping our souls bright and youthful?
	One of the greatest blessings of our nation is our beloved Queen, who is so youthful in her soul. She brings to us all a pleasant youthfulness of spirit. What a privilege to have such a monarch. We have been specially blessed as a nation with such a Queen. She has taught and demonstrated to us all that growing old is not a condemnation, but rather a coronation—a coronation by which we have been enriched. Her royal footprints have left behind her welcoming marks on the sands of time, which we are happy to follow.
	"'Twere better youth were age
	Than age were youth again
	Youth is regardless of the page
	Which age would fear to stain."
	I trust that as we leave the House today, we will remember the immortal words of the poet Browning:
	"Grow old along with me!
	The best has yet to be,
	The last of life, for which the first was made:
	Our times are in His hand
	Who saith 'A whole I planned,
	Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!'"
	I salute Her Majesty the Queen on a glorious declaration; 80 not out.

Angus MacNeil: On behalf of the Scottish national party and Plaid Cymru, I add my congratulations to the Queen and wish her many very happy returns. I should like to bring to the attention of the House her good choice of a birthday holiday this year, which is to cruise round my constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I am sure the good people of the Hebrides wish her well and I hope she enjoys her cruise, particularly around Lewis, Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, Barra and especially Mingulay. Ceud mile failte dhan Bhanrighinn agus tha mi an dochas gun cord an turas rithe.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on the occasion of Her Majesty's eightieth birthday, and to express its appreciation of Her Majesty's unfailing devotion to the duties of State, the Nation and the Commonwealth, and its warmest good wishes for her long continuing health and happiness.
	Ordered,
	That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household.—[The Prime Minister.]

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

David Hanson: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 13th March 2006 (Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1.   Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
	3.   Those proceedings shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.
	4.   Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			  
			 First Day   
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Clauses 1 to 7, new Clauses relating to Part 1 of the Bill, new Schedules relating to Part 1 of the Bill, Clauses 10 to 12, new Clauses relating to Part 3 of the Bill, new Schedules relating to Part 3 of the Bill. The moment of interruption on the first day. 
			 Second Day   
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Clause 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 22, new Clauses relating to Part 5 of the Bill, new Schedules relating to Part 5 of the Bill, other new Clauses, other new Schedules. The moment of interruption on the second day. 
		
	
	5.   In paragraph 7 of the Order, for "Thursday 27th April" there shall be substituted "Tuesday 2nd May".
	The programme motion has been agreed through the usual channels and there will be ample opportunity for consideration of the matters before us. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House will be completed in two days—today and tomorrow—and proceedings in Standing Committee have been extended to Tuesday 2 May.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The Opposition are content with what the Government propose.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

(Clauses 1 to 7, 10 to 12, 19 to 22 and Schedule 2, and any new clauses and schedules other than those relating to Parts 2 or 4)
	Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Anonymous Registration

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: No. 24, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
	New clause 1—Anonymous registration—
	'In section 73 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, in subsection (2)(a) leave out "10".'.

Lady Hermon: On Second Reading, which was not so long ago—13 March—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland assured the House that
	"the Bill provides for the introduction of an anonymous registration scheme and a new late registration window"—
	whatever that is. He continued:
	"The measures broadly mirror changes being introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Electoral Administration Bill, as the Government believe"—
	I am delighted about this—
	"that it is right that the citizens of Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights as those of the rest of the UK."—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1175.]
	So say all of us. The people of Northern Ireland do indeed deserve to enjoy the same rights as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would delete provisions in clause 1. I take great exception to the fact that instead of the people of Northern Ireland being treated as the Secretary of State undertook just over a month ago, they are to be treated differently in relation to anonymous registration. I recognise that there are circumstances in Northern Ireland where anonymous registration is essential. Not long ago there was a break-in at a secure office in Castlereagh police station. Files were taken that compromised the security of many members of the security services. Prison officers, police officers and others feel strongly that their details—name and address—can be located if they register to vote in Northern Ireland.
	This is a serious issue. Anonymous registration is required when individuals feel that their security—or perhaps that of their family who register to vote in Northern Ireland and exercise their franchise, as they are entitled to do—would be compromised if their names were submitted on the electoral register. Of course, a balance must be struck to ensure that those who have genuine concerns about their identity being traced by using their entry on the electoral register are covered by a provision for anonymous registration. However, clause 1(1)—the strange and curious provision before us today—refers to a curious animal called
	"section 10 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006".
	As the Minister and other hon. Members will know, there is no such thing as the Electoral Administration Act 2006. That is still a Bill, which is being considered in another place, where it may be amended before it returns to the House. As we all know, after a long voyage of discovery and amendment in another place and in the House, what may appear currently to be clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill may become a section with any other number.
	I should like the Minister to explain—I will listen very carefully—why the people of Northern Ireland will be treated differently. Once again, they will be treated to the obnoxious procedure of an Order in Council. Clause 1(1) begins with the words "An Order in Council". May I say quietly and gently to the Minister that I am absolutely sick, sore and weary of delegated legislation being used in Northern Ireland? Yesterday, we had a prime example, when the Secretary of State made a statement in the House indicating that he believed that the best way to govern Northern Ireland was by local people. Within an hour, through delegated legislation, the format of local government in Northern Ireland was changed by an Order in Council—no amendment in Committee and no debate on Report or Third Reading. That is an appalling way to legislate for Northern Ireland, and we now see it once again.
	Clause 1(1) deals with an Order in Council to provide for anonymous registration in Northern Ireland
	"only for purposes corresponding, or similar, to those of"
	so-called
	"section 10 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006".
	If the people of Northern Ireland are to be treated in the same way as the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State assured us on 13 March, and clause 1(1) indicates that the Order in Council will only make corresponding, or similar, provision to that already in the Electoral Administration Bill, I wonder whether the Minister will kindly explain why the people of Northern Ireland are not being treated in the same way as those in the rest of the country.

Lembit �pik: I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the use of Orders in Council is being increasingly abused by the Government. Does she agree that our cynicism about that method directly results from the Government's recent behaviour in simply pushing through highly significant and profoundly important legislation after a two-hour debate on the Floor of the House? As a result, very few hon. Members have confidence in extending that methodology any further.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which, of course, makes perfect sense, as always.

Peter Robinson: That is going too far.

Lady Hermon: It is a slight exaggeration, I agree, but I am being generous this afternoon.
	I wonder whether the Minister will simply address this question: why should similar or corresponding provisions about anonymous registration, as proposed in this rag-bag of a miscellaneous Bill, not be dealt with in a proper way and a proper placewithin the Electoral Administration Bill, which is still being considered in the other House? That Bill could be extended to Northern Ireland. It is a curious fact that, as drafted, clause 10 of that Bill does not automatically extend to Northern Ireland. Surely, the people of Northern Ireland deserve that provision to be taken out of this Bill and given the proper scrutiny in another place and then in the House, instead of being dealt with as delegated legislation.

Peter Robinson: rose

The Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members would indicate unambiguously that they wish to catch my eye. I had been looking in the direction of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), as he tabled new clause 1. I imagined, perhaps incorrectly, that the Committee would benefit from hearing from him before wider discussion took place.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am currently note-wise compromised. I want to check something that the Minister might say before I make my contribution to cover all my bases, so I apologise for my apparently odd behaviour. I shall be very happy to speak a little later.

The Chairman: We must hope that the debate extends long enough for the hon. Gentleman to be adequately prepared.

Peter Robinson: I shall attempt to filibuster to assist the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).
	I followed the argument adduced by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and I agree with her absolutely about the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House, particularly about how legislation is introduced. There can be no adequate alternative to the House dealing with proper primary legislation, particularly on electoral matters. I certainly join her and other hon. Members who have expressed disquiet about the Order-in-Council procedure. Along with the hon. Lady, I was present at the Committee yesterday, and it is a disgrace that no amendment could be tabled for significant Northern Ireland business. I join her entirely on that matter.
	I also join her entirely about parity, particularly in electoral matters. A very strong case can be made that Northern Ireland should be dealt with in precisely the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in respect of the franchise. I have the same misgivings as the hon. Lady about referring to provisions that have not yet passed all their stages in Parliament. That makes us a little nervous about including this provision.
	Again, I join the hon. Lady in saying that anonymous registration has real meritsI shall come to some of those issues in a moment or twobut I am not quite clear why she has moved the amendment by which subsection (1) would be deleted, whereby no provision would be made for anonymous registration. So how would we meet the criteria of parity and be dealt with in the same way as other parts of the United Kingdom? If the hon. Lady had sought to delete subsection (1) and replace it with a substitute, we would probably have been with her all the way, but removing subsection (1) and subsection (2), as she proposed in amendment No. 2, would effectively mean that we had no anonymous registration.

Lady Hermon: Let me clarify the point. In my final remarks, I urged the Minister to ensure that clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill, which is currently before another place, extends to Northern Ireland and therefore the same provisions about anonymous registration as those that apply to the rest of Great Britain would extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, anonymous registration would be covered.

Peter Robinson: We are dealing with this Bill, and the Committee cannot amend a Bill that is being considered in another House. We must deal with the Bill that is in front of us. Clearly, if the Committee removed subsections (1) and (2), as the hon. Lady asks us to do, we would not have anonymous registration in Northern Ireland. It is particularly important that we have that provision in Northern Ireland, although I endorse the caveats that she mentioned, because I am unhappy about the manner in which the provision is being introduced in the Bill. None the less, I believe that it is essential that that should happen.
	I am particularly uncomfortable about approving measures that are subject to provisions that the Secretary of State will produce at some later stage. Anything we say at this stage is subject to the caveat that it depends on whether we approve the later provisions. Clearly, given the different arrangements in Northern Ireland, the provisions will not be identical to those that apply in other parts of the United Kingdom, but they should share the same underlying principles. Establishing a system of anonymous registration for people whose safety could be compromised if their addresses were known is a helpful step forward.
	In respect of the consultation responses, I note that Sinn Fein was the only party opposed to anonymous registration, but that is not really surprising. I also found that the Ulster Unionist party put in no response at all, and my party did the samelargely, I assume, because both parties are happy with the Bill. I also note that the Electoral Commission expressed strong support for the introduction of anonymous registration. It is particularly relevant to Northern Ireland in view of threats to the security forces and members of the Prison Service.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends will be well aware of IRA intelligence-gathering operations, whether it be the raids at Castlereagh police station and Dundonald house or the Stormontgate affair, after which many peoplepolice officers and otherswere informed that their details had been compromised. There is good cause for servants of the Crown to have some anonymity. Many of them could be compromised and when it came to deciding whether to exercise their right to vote or protect their families' safety, they would probably choose not to be registered at all. That would be a most unfortunate set of circumstances to have to deal with and I am sure that the House would not want those circumstances to continue.
	Apart from the special circumstances of prison and police officers in Northern Ireland, some more general circumstances apply throughout the UKto victims of domestic violence, for example. That provides further evidence of the benefits to be gained from allowing anonymous registration. It would help the people affected to live free from the fear of attack. Any scheme would have to be devised with the main aim of protecting the vulnerable without allowing anyone to benefit from not being on the register. Such a balance will always be difficult to strike, but that difficulty cannot be allowed to stand as an argument against the principle of anonymous registration.
	When the Electoral Administration Bill was passing through the House, the official Opposition sought to table a probing amendment. Its main principlethat access to anonymous registration should be for those who are at risk rather than those who seek privacywould be generally accepted by the House. It is important to back up the case for being at risk with suitable documentation from the police or other statutory bodies. On that basis, I believe that the House could be content that the right people had access to the anonymous registration list. All such cases are to be regarded as exceptional rather than usual. Adopting the telephone directory analogy, it should not be as easy to get off the register as to go ex-directory. I hope that, in framing the provisions, the Government will take into account the issue of risk rather than convenience or privacy. The electoral register plays an important role and must be as complete as possible: it should not be changed on account of privacy, but only by reference to safety.
	Unfortunately, due to the bad drafting of clause 1, it is impossible to make an assessment of how the arrangements will work in practice. We support the principle of anonymous registration, however, so we continue to support the Bill, but we trust that our business will be dealt with in a more appropriate manner in due course.

Patrick Cormack: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about Orders in Council, which are indeed a wholly unsatisfactory way of proceeding. We all know why it is done, but it is important for the Government to deal with the problem. If the Government's deadlines announced from the Dispatch Box yesterday are not metwe all hope that they will be, but know why they might not bewe will have to make some other provisions. It was most unfortunate that an Order in Council, affecting the whole local governance of Northern Ireland, was made yesterday without any opportunity for amendment, particularly when virtually all the political parties in Northern Ireland had expressed real misgivings about the number of the new local authorities to be constituted. That, however, is by the way. It remains an apposite illustration, but I shall not digress any further, Sir Alan, as you would rebuke me. The matter should be dealt with on the record and I hope that the Minister will say something about it.
	The hon. Lady also made a good point about the Electoral Administration Bill and I am particularly concerned about the fact that it will not apply to Northern Ireland. Many hon. Members in their places today will know that the Government were particularly helpful when I sought to amend the Bill to prevent the sort of ridiculous delay that occurred in my constituency last year as a result of the tragic death of one of my opponents. I could not have asked for greater co-operation from any Government, whatever their political complexion, in trying to amend legislation. First, I brought in a ten-minute Bill and the Ministerthe right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)gave her agreement to what I was trying to achieve, but suggested that it could be tagged on to the Electoral Administration Bill. I readily accepted her suggestion and she and her officials worked closely with me, for which I remain extremely grateful. I am glad to put that on the record again.
	However, if the same position arises in Northern Ireland at the next general election and a candidate for any of the Northern Ireland constituencies dies, the hon. Members who represent them would have to go through the long, protracted delay that I had to face. That is absurd, as the problem would not arise anywhere else in the UK. It is therefore essential that the relevant provisions in that legislation come into force for Northern Ireland, at least in that particular.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East was concerned that, if the hon. Lady's amendment were accepted and no proper amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill were made, anonymous registration would be put seriously at risk. Indeed, it would not apply in Northern Ireland. I am unhappy about some of the almost pro-consular powers that go with the Secretary of State's office at the moment, but I would still prefer the anonymous registration promised in the Bill, even with all its imperfections, than run the risk of having no anonymous registration at all. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was entirely right to point that out.
	It is good, particularly at the beginning of consideration of a Bill, to see both the Unionist parties singing from virtually the same hymn sheetand long may that continue. I hope that the probing amendmentfor that is what it isso elegantly and eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for North Down will result in some assurances from the Minister, which we would all welcome.
	I want to test your patience for just a little longer, Sir Alan. Earlier today, we heard a most eloquent tribute from the leader of the Democratic Unionist party to Her Majesty the Queen. We all listened and, I am sure, inwardly applauded what he said, as we also applauded the admirable speeches of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. However, modesty forbade the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) from saying that he had already reached that milestone. He has recently celebrated his 80th birthday. I am in no position to comment on the condition of his soul, but I can certainly say that he is young at heart. I know that I speak for everybody in the Chamber and those who are not here in congratulating him on his 80th birthday and wishing him many long years to come.

Lembit �pik: Thank you, Sir Alan, for your patience earlier. I have now literally collected my thoughts and have them in my hand. The pressure on my time was created by the ridiculous overburdening of those of us who do Wales and Northern Ireland business at the same time. I do not blame the Minister, but there are those in the usual channels who should be more sensitive than to have Northern Ireland business and a Welsh Grand Committee on the same day. The Secretary of State has evidently chosen a different route by not being here at all. At least I was here in body, if not initially in spirit.
	New clause 1 would simplify the process of introducing anonymous registration in Northern Ireland, and anonymous registration is a necessary option for the reasons that have already been outlined. However, the process that the Government are putting forward seems rather complicated. Our new clause would amend clause 73 of the Electoral Administration Bill to allow clause 10 of that Bill, which introduces anonymous registration for England and Wales, to apply also to Northern Ireland. That is a very simple way of achieving what the Government seem to want to achieve. We do not understand why they have taken the approach that they have. First, it is fairly easy to make the change, and I do not understand why they thinkperhaps the Minister can explainthat it is not easier simply to replicate in this Bill clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill.
	To come to the point that I really wanted to check, I know that the Department for Constitutional Affairs consulted on the anonymous registration provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill, but why was Northern Ireland not included in that consultation? If it was, I certainly have not been informed. The Northern Ireland Office also carried out its own consultation on the issue but, as far as I understand it, that consultation did not finish until January. If that is wrong, perhaps the Minister can make it clear why there were two separate consultations. Why did the NIO not consult at the same time as the DCA?

David Hanson: The DCA's consultation is ongoing, and the NIO has not yet undertaken a consultation. I shall refer to that in my response later.

Lembit �pik: The Minister can give a more complete answer later, but it is a bit of a moot point anyway. The core question is why create two separate pieces of legislation when one will do.
	As we have said before, we support the provisions in the clause, and it is obvious that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) are probing amendments. She made clear their purpose. We are simply trying to establish why there was not more joined-up thinking in Departments on how the provision's objectives are to be achieved. If the point behind new clause 1 makes sense to the Government, they can still take it on board. That does not mean a great victory or defeat for anybody, but it would at least ensure consistency. Producing separate legislation always runs the risk of unintended consequences and those consequences could quite simply be avoided by adopting the methodology of new clause 1.

Mark Durkan: I want to take this opportunity to inform hon. Members that we have a lot of sympathy for the spirit with which these probing amendments were moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We will certainly be careful to listen to what the Government say about how they will handle and take forward the effects of the powers that will be created by the Bill.
	We accept that, unfortunately, there is a case for the principle of anonymous registration to protect people from being tracked down by those who have sinister intent, including, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, protecting those who have fled from domestic violence as well as the more obvious cases that people might think of in relation to Northern Ireland. However, we must be sure that the provision cannot be used and abused by people in a wider way to evade the attention or reach of lawful authorities by staying off the register or for their own convenience and privacy.
	We agree with the health warnings that hon. Members have issued about the Government reserving to themselves powers to do things by Orders in Council. No matter what assurances the Government give us, we must all go by form rather than by faith. Recent and current experience shows just how frustrating and, at times, insulting and infuriating the whole business of the conduct of Orders in Council can be.
	Although we are sympathetic to the probing amendments, we do not support them to the extent of removing the possibility of anonymous registration. We want to hear what the Government have to say and, in particular, the Minister's strong case against the whole concept of new clause 1.

Laurence Robertson: Perhaps, Sir Alan, you will allow me briefly to add my tributes to Her Majesty the Queen and to the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who on 6 April reached a similarly great milestone.
	I, too, am puzzled by the Government's approach to anonymous registrationa point that was outlined eventually by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Once he had managed to find his notes, he made a good point in questioning why clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. That is rather puzzling.
	I am a little concerned by the way in which legislation is being treated at the moment. I hope that you will not consider it out of order, Sir Alan, if I mention that yesterday we had to consider an important order upstairs at the same time as an important statement on Northern Ireland was being made in the Chamber. I raised the issue on a point of order in Committee yesterday, because it does not seem to be a good way of managing what can hardly be described as trivia. The measures that we are discussing are very important, and I ask the Government to consider my point when they introduce legislation and orders in one form or another.
	All of us in Committee yesterday questioned why the order was necessary when, at that very time, the Government were saying in the Chamber that they were looking to restore the Assembly. That seems a very odd way of going about business. I will not try your patience any further on that, Sir Alan, but I would like to put it on the record that we cannot give legislation the serious treatment that it deserves when hon. Members are expected to be in two places at the same time.
	I will not take much of the Committee's time on this issue other than to say that the official Opposition understand the need for anonymous registration particularly, but not exclusively, in Northern Ireland. Other Members have made points about how people in Great Britain might want to exercise the right to cast their votes, but understandably for one reason or another do not feel safe about their names being on the register. That problem exists in Great Britain, but it exists particularly in Northern Ireland for reasons with which we are all unfortunately very familiar. We therefore support the retention of the clause.

David Hanson: I thank Members for the fair points that they have raised. They demand an answer from the Government. I am pleased that there appears to be a consensus on both sides of the House about anonymous registration, and clause 1 was introduced to make provision for that. I shall try to deal with the concerns that have been raised.
	As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) recognised, it is the Government's intention to introduce an anonymous registration scheme in Northern Ireland that will broadly mirror the one being introduced for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Electoral Administration Bill. That reflects the Government's beliefI hope that hon. Members will agree with thisthat the situation in Northern Ireland demands the support of the same rights as those enjoyed by citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason, we will attempt to introduce a set of proposals broadly similar to the provisions in the United Kingdom. However, there is a significant difference in the way in which the Government approach this matter, which is why I want to relate this point to the other points that have been made.
	Members from all parties will know that Northern Ireland has a body of electoral legislation different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to registration and electoral fraud. For that reason, we cannot apply the scheme proposed in the Electoral Administration Bill currently before another place to Northern Ireland in the form in which it has been put. We need to look at how we can adapt the legislation to work effectively in Northern Ireland. That   will require detailed and careful technical consideration by the Government. However, the principle is that, for the reasons that have been outlined by hon. Members on both sides of the House, citizens of Northern Ireland should have the same rights as citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to look at how, technically, we can do that in the context of the other aspects of legislation on these matters in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the Minister for his typically courteous response to this brief debate. Will he touch briefly on the point that I raised? It would be most unfortunate if the people of Northern Ireland did not benefit from those provisions in the Electoral Administration Bill.

David Hanson: I understand perfectly well the situation in which the hon. Gentleman found himself last June. It is a situation that any of us could find ourselves in, and I am sure that it was a complete nightmare for him, because he had to fight the election so late. I am looking very carefully at the situation with regard to the Bill from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is currently before another place. I understand that it extends to Northern Ireland, but I will seek advice on all the clauses. I would not want to mislead him, so I will write to him. It is my understanding, and certainly my hope, that the provisions relating to his postponed election last June would be applicable to Northern Ireland, but I want to check on the details and report to him in due course, if I may, because it is a Department for Constitutional Affairs Bill, for which I have no direct responsibility.
	As I have said to hon. Members generally, the proposals that we want will ensure that the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland are the same as those of citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. As Members have said, it is important that an elector whose safety would be at risk if he or she were identifiable on an electoral register should be allowed to register anonymously. That will require detailed and careful technical consideration.
	In addition, as Members have noticedI pay tribute to their forensic abilitiesthe Electoral Administration Bill is still being considered by another place. As the relevant provisions in that Bill might be amended, we wish to examine in detail the final proposals that come before the House before we look at how to apply them to Northern Ireland. In the light of those considerations, we have concluded that it makes sense to wait until the approach for Great Britain is finalised, in another place, before we seek to define any detail of how any scheme will apply to Northern Ireland.
	That is not exactly a new approach. Section 84(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which this clause amends, already allows for provisions to be made by Order in Council in respect of certain matters relating to elections. Let me address the point about Orders in Council. Having been in the job for 11 months, I know that Order-in-Council provisions are unsatisfactory to Members from all parties. Indeed, dare I say it, they are occasionally unsatisfactory to the Government as well. In discussions that I have had upstairs on modification orders, we have already agreed to consider how we can best deal with the question of Orders in Council. Very often, the procedure is unsatisfactory.
	In this case, however, I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that although the Government are seeking an Order in Council at a later date, we intend to consult widely on the proposals that will construct the Order in Council relating to anonymous registration. We want to ensure that when we introduce anonymous registration in Northern Ireland, it has the support of the political parties and the electors of Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that we consult fully on how we take that proposal forward. I hope to undertake a consultation very shortly on who should be eligible for anonymous registration, how that registration will apply and what criteria should be brought into play.
	As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has mentioned, domestic violence might be a criterion. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the issue might be threats of intimidation, or the break-in at Castlereagh, for example. There are a whole range of issues that we want to consider. With due respect to the whole of the United Kingdom, we might want to consult on some matters specific to Northern Ireland. I will certainly bring forward a widespread consultation on that as soon as possible, prior to the introduction of the Order in Council.

Lembit �pik: The Minister's words are laudable, but does he not see that the Government have created a rod for their own back? We have often been told by Ministers in Northern Ireland debates that they will take full account of what the parties in Northern Ireland and the Opposition parties have to sayand then they ignore the advice. Why should this situation be any different? What assurance, or evidence, can the Minister provide that on this occasion the Government will genuinely take on board ideas, even if they originate from a party other than Labour?

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that during my tenure in this job, I have tried to listen to what parties have said. On occasions, we cannot always agree and it is not possible to do so. In response to the consultation on some of the matters that we will deal with later, in Committee next week or on the Floor of the House tomorrow, I had four, five or possibly six different views from different parties. It is impossible to reach a consensus on every issue on all occasions, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to consult on who should be eligible and how anonymous registration should be applied to Northern Ireland. That will happen in the light of the ongoing consultation by the DCA on the same matters, which are being considered by this House and another place in the context of the current Bill dealing with electoral matters in the United Kingdom, which was referred to earlier.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that that consultation will take place. There will be an opportunity for parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and anybody else to comment on those matters. I will produce the Order in Council at a later date for approvalin a manner that I know is unsatisfactory to hon. Membersto ensure that we try to get some consensus on these matters. Having heard what right hon. and hon. Members have said today about anonymous registration, I think that there will be the potential for agreement and consensus on the scope, the criteria and the implementation of the provisions.
	I understand the unhappiness with the Order-in-Council procedure, but I have an open mind on the precise details of the scheme, which is why we are going to consult. We are clear that only genuinely vulnerable individuals should be able to benefit from such a scheme. DCA is currently carrying out its own consultation. I very much hope that Members will support that. I hope that that has given hon. Members some assurances.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister address one issue that has not come out at all in the debate this afternoon? The subsequent clauses, which we are going to look at in a few minutes, propose an interval of 10 years, instead of an annual canvass. Will the Minister assure us that when there is a registration of anonymity, there will have to be a very good reason for that person or persons remaining anonymous until the canvass comes round after a 10 year interval?

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that these matters will be part of the consultation. I promised to bring before Members, and the people of Northern Ireland, a proposal on the scope of anonymous registration, the criteria for that and its implementation. That is the intent and purpose of the consultation document.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister has dealt very adequately with this particular prospective Order in Council, but I raised the point that if the deadlines that the Government have set for the Assembly are not met, we have a problem. Will he give an assurance that in that unhappy event there will not be an indefinite continuation of the present Order-in-Council procedure?

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we considered the last modification orderindeed, when we considered the first modification order with which I dealt, in July 2005the way in which we deal with Orders in Council was raised by the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), as well as Northern Ireland Members. We gave an undertaking to examine our proposals. The Secretary of State wrote to the spokesmen for the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and others to ask for their comments. We have received responses and I understand that private discussions are taking place. In the unhappy event of the Northern Ireland Assembly not being restored by the end of November, as proposed, we are considering how we will deal with the situation. I hope that the Assembly will be ultimately restored and that matters that are dealt with by Orders in Council will, rightly and properly, be dealt with by elected Members of the Assembly in Stormont, rather than by hon. Members in the House of Commons.

Peter Robinson: The Minister confused me slightly when he responded to the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Was his answer related to the canvass that will take place every 10 years under the Bill, rather than the actual registers coming out? Was he saying that there will not necessarily be any correlation between the time at which the canvass takes place every 10 years and the length of time for which people may have anonymous registration?

David Hanson: The criteria for anonymous registration and the way in which that will be implemented will be a matter for consultation. A register will be published annually, as is set out in other clauses in the Bill. The proposal in the Bill is that the canvass will be held every 10 years. The two matters are entirely separate, so I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman. The criteria for who should be anonymously registered, the conditions for their registration, the way in which the registration should be applied, and how the scheme will work will be subject to the consultation that I intend to issue as soon as possible, after considering the results of the consultation on the DCA Bill before the Houseand, I hope, with hon. Members' support today for the principle.

Lembit �pik: I am not sure if the Minister was going to come to this before he finished, but I shall put to him again the question that I asked before. Why did the Government not simply replicate clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill to achieve the same purpose? It would be perfectly respectable for him to say, We didn't think about it, but it would be useful to understand whether that approach was a strategy or an accident.

David Hanson: I hoped that I had dealt with that point earlier, but I will try to assist the hon. Gentleman's recollection. I said that Northern Ireland had a body of electoral law, especially relating to registration and electoral fraud, thatfor reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be awareis different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That means that technical issues that are different from those that apply to the Electoral Administration Bill must be considered. I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have some worries about that. We are broadly trying to replicate in Northern Ireland the situation that exists in my constituency in north Wales, but we have to examine the detailed and technical way in which we can do that when the situation is intermeshed with existing legislation that under current legislation is not amendable.
	I hope that I have been able to allay hon. Members' fears and have shown that I recognise their points as fair. Given their fears about Orders in Council, I hope that my proposals on consultation will address their concerns. I ask the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendment.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for his extensive response to my points. I am not entirely persuaded of the reasons why clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill is not being extended to Northern Ireland. We are seeing a repeat performance from the Government: when they introduce primary legislation that is supposed to cover the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland falls behind. Clause 27 of this Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, belatedly extends several provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to Northern Ireland.
	There is absolutely no reference in clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill, as amended in another place, to differences in the body of electoral law in Northern Ireland. Although the Minister has waxed lyrical about the differences in legislation that have been needed to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, and referred to specific difficulties with adapting clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill, he has been unable to pinpoint any particular difficulties with simply extending clause 10 in total, or verbatim, to Northern Ireland.
	Having said that, I am glad that there is consensus among all parties in the House about the need for anonymous registration. Although there can be an edited register at the moment, no voters can have their names withdrawn from the full register in Northern Ireland. Although the Minister gave an assurance that the people of Northern Ireland will be treated with parity of esteem with those in rest of the United Kingdom, he contradicted himself by referring to the extraordinary body of electoral legislation in Northern Ireland. That legislation should not be an excuse for not treating anonymous registration in Northern Ireland on a par with that in Great Britain, and doing so in primary legislation.
	I accept that if I press the amendment to a Division, however, I will lose. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the point well that if we were, by good fortune, not to have the Government out in full force to vote against the amendment, we might fall between two stools and not have anonymous registration introduced in Northern Ireland. That would be a serious error to which I would not wish to put my name, so given the Minister's assurances and my hope that he will reflect on the points that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	  
	Timing of canvass

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 24, leave out from '2010' to end of line 26.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fourth'.
	No. 11, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.
	No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 38 and 39.
	No. 14, in page 3, line 1, after '2010', insert 'and'.
	No. 3, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fourth'.
	No. 15, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.
	No. 16, in page 3, line 2, leave out from '2010' to end of line 3.

Lady Hermon: Thank you again, Sir Alan[Interruption.] And bless you, to the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)[Interruption.]

Patrick Cormack: He does not believe in women priests.

Ian Paisley: Your theology is sound, my friend.

Lady Hermon: I say, Bless you, anyway.

Ian Paisley: I did not know that she claimed to be a priest[Laughter.]

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) might have discovered how a little aside can go a long way.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North Antrim enjoys such good health and am sure that the sneeze indicates only that there is a little breeze in the Chamber at the moment.
	Clause 3, which is on the timing of the canvass, causes me considerable concern. I reflect on the happy time when I became a Member of the House in 2001. The first piece of primary legislation relating to Northern Ireland in that Session was the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. In March 2001not so long agothe Government presented to Parliament a command paper, Cm 5080, entitled Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland. On the first page, the Government spelled out their responsibility in light of the fact that there was perceivedit certainly existed, so it was not just perceived, but unacceptableelectoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The Government spelled out their responsibility in paragraph 4 of the Command Paper:
	The responsibility of the Government is two-fold: to protect the democratic exercise of the franchise and to combat abuse at the poll . . . where the threat of fraud is reduced, the credibility of the poll will be enhanced, and . . . this should encourage more people to exercise their right to vote.
	We have abolished the annual canvass in clause 2, and clause 3 proposes that a canvass should be held every tenth year. That period can be modifieda subject to which I shall returnbut as the Government have gone to the trouble of publishing a Command Paper and the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which only went on the statute book four years ago, they should take care to achieve the right balance between preventing or eradicating electoral fraudit is a serious crime to deprive someone of the franchiseand ensuring that people are not discouraged from voting by making it too difficult to register on an annual basis.
	The Government have got the balance wrong in clause 3, which extends the period between canvasses to 10 years. However, in exceptional circumstancesand this is what concerns me most in a close reading of clause 3a canvass under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2003 must be conducted in 2010
	unless the Secretary of State makes an order providing that the requirement in this paragraph does not apply
	and every tenth year following 2010. The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland is independent of Government. He has a heavy burden of responsibility, and I pay tribute to the work that he undertakes with his team. Clause 3(2) states that he may make a recommendation in favour of a canvass in the interim
	for the purpose of meeting the relevant registration objectives,
	which can be summed up as combating electoral fraud or simply ensuring that the register is up to date. However, the Secretary of State can issue a diktatI do not welcome this trend and I do not look forward to the emergency legislation that will be published tomorrowso that, having considered the recommendation, he can notify
	the Chief Electoral Officer that he is satisfied that the public interest requires a canvass to be conducted for that purpose.
	Even if the chief electoral officer, who has ultimate responsibility for electoral law and the canvass in Northern Ireland, requests a canvass before 2010, the Secretary of State can maintain that that is not in the public interest. When would it not be in the public interest to act as recommended by the chief electoral officer?
	I may have misread clause 3, but it appears that the Secretary of State could, by his own hand, make an order to delay the canvass until as late as 2016. That is completely unacceptable, given the efforts in the 2002 Act, for which I am enormously grateful, to tackle robustly the serious problem of electoral fraud. I urge the Government not to allow electoral fraud to return to the system by delaying the canvass for such a long time. Amendment No. 27 proposes that the annual canvass should be held every fifth year, although some people believe that it should be held every fourth year.

The Chairman: Order. May I advise the hon. Lady that amendment No. 27 is in a different group of amendments and cannot be dealt with at this stage?

Lady Hermon: I beg your pardon, Sir Alan. My copy of the selection list was obscured. In fact, I wish to speak to amendment No. 15, which is in the group of amendments to clause 3. It proposes that the annual canvass should be conducted every fifth year instead of every 10th year, and certainly not delayed until 2016.

Patrick Cormack: For the sake of clarity, if the canvass is to be held every fifth year it is not an annual canvass but a quinquennial one.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that piece of wisdom.
	I urge the Minister to get the balance right. The Government have done their very bestI pay tribute to them for tackling the serious problem of electoral fraudbut they should not provide an opportunity for people who wish to exploit the situation by delaying the canvass and holding one every 10th year, as that that could allow fraud to creep back into the system.

Laurence Robertson: Briefly, I wish to make two points about the amendments that we have tabled. For the sake of clarification, can the Minister explain why the year 2010 was chosen? Does it have something to do with the general census? If not, it may have been a good idea to fall in with the census.
	In common with the hon. Member for North Down(Lady Hermon) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), we feel that a 10-year interval is too long. It is in everyone's interest to encourage people to register to vote and to ensure that the register is up to date and accurate. We did not object to clause 2, which abolished the annual canvass, but a 10-year interval is too long, which is why we tabled our amendments. We should therefore like the Minister to explain why he chose 2010 to conduct a canvass and why he chose an interval of 10 years.

Lembit �pik: There are two issues. The first was raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the second is the length of time between canvasses. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that it is unnecessarily centralist and directive to give the Secretary of State the opportunity simply to cancel the 2010 canvass. I do not wish to repeat her arguments, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification for the inclusion of that provision. I counsel him to be careful, because there is an increasing tendency in Northern Ireland legislation to give more and more powers to the Secretary of State simply because we are debating a particular subject and someone says, Let's give the Secretary of State flexibility to make individual decisions. If one steps back from the body of legislation that we have passed in the past nine years, one can see that there has been a huge centralisation of power for the Secretary of State because the opportunity arose for someone to do so for his convenience. That is not a good reason to do it, and I want to hear what the Minister has to say by way of justification.
	The 10-year period between canvasses is also important. A few minutes ago, we passed clause 2, which means that we have abolished the annual canvass in Northern Ireland, and clause 3 replaces the annual canvass with a canvass that will take place every 10 years. Our amendment would shorten that period of time to every four years, while the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would decrease it to every five yearsI think that the hon. Member for North Down also takes that view. We can argue about one year either way, but the consensual point is that 10 years is way too long.
	The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 introduced individual registration in Northern Ireland, and we remember the pain that Northern Ireland experienced to get an accurate canvass. The good news is that those measures have been successfulthere are currently more than 1.1 million people on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent. of the voting age population. That is a triumph of data gathering, and credit is due to the Government and to the people who were involved in generating that reliable information.
	We understand why the Government want to abolish the annual canvass, and we all agree with them, but we must ensure that the process that replaces it is not so onerous that it discourages people from registering and that it is not so infrequent that it utterly undermines all the work to obtain an accurate canvass. That is not only in the interests of individual voters, because it will also help to prevent electoral fraud. It is obvious that there will be an opportunity for things to start going wrong again, if there is an entire decade between the collection of data. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 propose that a canvass should be held every four years, and if a canvass were conducted in the year before an Assembly election was due to be held, then there would be confidence in the register.
	The Minister must answer three questions. First, why should there be such an incredibly long period of time, when all kinds of factors mean that the register will be highly inaccurate by the end of that period? Secondly, why are the Government not concerned that electoral fraud will creep in again as the register becomes inaccurate? Thirdly, human beings are human beings and may not keep up to date if they move house or their circumstances change, so why are the Government not concerned that people will become increasingly disenfranchised, as logic tells us that they will be, in a 10-year period? Ten years is a quarter of my life; it is one eighth of the life of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley); and, although I do not know how old the Minister is, I suspect that it is about one fifth of his life. [Interruption.] Looking at the Minister's youthful features, it is clear that he has had an easy life.
	I ask the Minister to think again. I suspect that there is consensus among Northern Ireland parties that the period is too long, and I can see that SDLP Members agree. The only people who might benefit from the 10-year period are those who seek to find ways back into the fraud game rather than those who seek to have fair elections. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Patrick Cormack: In a brief contribution, I want to reinforce some of the points made by previous speakers.
	Earlier this afternoon, I referred to the pro-consular powers of the Secretary of State. I hope that the talks that the Government are instituting next month will lead to agreement, but one must be an extremely optimistic person to be absolutely confident that agreement will be reached by the due date. If an agreement is not reached, we face the indefinite continuation of direct rule and of the use by the Secretary of State of his current powers, which are very great indeed. This is not a criticism of the present Secretary of State, any of his predecessors or any of his potential successors, but pro-consular powers are dangerous, and they make Northern Ireland very different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
	I want to reinforce the point about the 10-year period. The next general election cannot be later than 2010, so if that rule had been in force in 2001, a 10-year period would have encompassed three general elections, which is a telling point. All 10-year cycles include two general elections, and most of them include three, which is too long. I understand why the Government feel obliged to introduce clause 2 and abolish annual registration, and the fact that clause 3 went through without debate, let alone a Division, indicates that there is broad agreement on both sides of the House and among the parties in Northern Ireland that that is a sensible move. One year may be too short, but 10 years is far too long.
	I do not have a particular preference between the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the Front Bench and by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who speaks for the Liberal party, because I would be happy to settle on either four or five years. I have long believed in fixed-term Parliaments, but I do not have a particularly strong view on whether the term should be four years or five years. However, 10 years is far too long and I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. When the Bill is debated in another place, where there will be ample opportunity for further amendment and discussion, I hope that the Government will introduce an amendment to alter the period to four or five years. That would be broadly acceptable, because the system would not be open to the potential problems to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has referred. I hope that the Minister will accept the good sense of those arguments.

Mark Durkan: As other hon. Members have said, we welcome the move away from the annual canvass. That particular provision was difficult to implement because it placed an undue onus on the chief electoral officer, which led to consequential demands on parties and others.
	As other hon. Members have said, we think that running the system on a 10-year basis is a step too far. A 10-year period could cause confusion between the 10-year electoral canvass and the census, which we want to avoid. Although we all accept the various reasons why people want to stay off the electoral register, we all want to ensure maximum participation in the census, not least given that the allocation of moneys for important public services depends on census returns.
	We want to ensure that there is no confusion. As the devolved Minister who presided over the last census in Northern Ireland in 2001, I know that there were difficulties and confusions because changes in electoral law were pending. The new form of electoral registration whereby people had to give their signatures led to confusion between the census and the new form of registration, because people thought that having done one, they had done the other.
	Equally, we must be careful when we consider how the electoral calendar might fall. Several elections could take place, not just general elections, before there is a general canvass to ensure that the register is clearly and publicly updated. It would be a step too far, and into the unknown, if we were to face the possibility of numerous elections before knowing how well the health of the register is maintained in between general canvasses. I hope that the Minister can colour in the ways in which the electoral office is intended to engage in focused and targeted work in between the dates for the general canvass to tend to areas where there is a strong case for believing that there is marked under-registration or over-registration. Regardless of whether we are talking about four-year, five-year or 10-year canvasses, what work will be done in the intervening period to proof and improve the quality of the annual registers?

Gregory Campbell: To reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point, figures show that in Northern Ireland people change house every five to eight years on average. It would compound the problem if people had moved once or twice during a 10-year period. We need to know what information will be updated between registration periods.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the point that 10 years would be too much, particularly depending on how the cycle might fall. Situations could arise whereby information is doubly out of date. Those are the anomaliesindeed, absurditiesthat we want to avoid. With a 10-year period, we could find that the annual canvass is taking place at a time that coincides broadly with Boundary Commission reviews, again adding to confusion and uncertainty. We should be careful, first, about going for 10 years, and secondly, what the cycle would be.
	I accept, however, that whether we are talking about four, five or 10 years, some flexibility must be allowed to the chief electoral officer to amend an alteration of the due date, either by taking it forward or moving it back. The electoral cycle could mean that the demands on the electoral office are such that it would be impossible for it to conduct an efficient general canvass by the scheduled dateperhaps due to proximity to the census or to boundary reviews.
	We perhaps have a slightly more relaxed view than some other hon. Members of leaving some facility for the chief electoral officer to seek a relaxation or alteration as regards the date. Our primary concern is to ask the Government to think again about the 10-year period. We are agnostic either way as between four or five years. We would probably prefer four years, but we recognise, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) provides some of the consequential trimmings that would be required elsewhere. The Conservative amendment rhymes better, in technical terms, than the Lib Dem amendment. We are not particularly hot and bothered about whether it is four years or five years, but we have many concerns about 10 years. Irrespective of that, we would like the Minister to clarify what remedial and health checking work will be guaranteed in relation to the annual registers that will be published.

William McCrea: I think that it is accepted throughout this House that it is important to encourage every person who is entitled to be registered to be on the electoral register. That is their democratic entitlement, and every democrat in this House wants to ensure that the register is up to date.
	However, we must learn from the lessons of the past. We would be very foolish if we did not recognise the reality that in the past we have needed considered debate about electoral fraud. I remind the House that many people in Northern Ireland believe that in 1997 I personally suffered because of electoral fraud. My constituency was one of several affected. A previous Member for Belfast, WestDr. Hendronendured the same thing in his constituency. Ulster constituencies certainly have a great deal of electoral fraud. Whenever we went to vote, we saw electoral cards being handed out from the boot of a certain political party's car. It was not done behind the scenesit was there to be seen. The same applied to benefit books.
	Something had to be done to stop fraudulent claims and people taking the votes of other people, whether dead or alive. We were delighted that the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was brought into being to remove fraudulent voting claims. The general canvass that took place every year was perceived to be going in the opposite direction, because many people who should have been on the electoral register were not. That led to a lot of discontent. It is a question of striking a balance.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the general canvass should take place every five years. We have no problem with four years, but we certainly do not believe that it should be every 10th year. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that that would be a step too far. In fact, it could be a step back into the mire of a register that no longer has the confidence of the community as a register of those who have the right to vote.

Lembit �pik: I recognise that the SDLP, the DUP and the Conservatives are all ganging up against my four-year proposal. Let me put on the record the rationale for it. In essence, I was suggesting that we have the canvass in the year before the elections for the Assembly, which will be up and running before we know it. [Interruption.] Yes, I realise that I am now digging a grave for the four years. At least that would have the logic of tying it into a known electoral cycle

Sylvia Heal: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's need to explain, but this is rather long for an intervention.

William McCrea: Thank you, Mrs. Heal, and I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for trying, but perhaps he should stop digging[Interruption.] Someone says, While he's ahead, but I am not quite sure what he was ahead of. Nevertheless, I accept that he was trying to take us away from the concept of a 10-year cycle and to propose something more reasonable. I think that most hon. Members accept that proposition in good faith, so the hon. Gentleman did not really need to explain his proposal.
	If people are asking when the election is to be held, I think that we will know whether the Assembly is up and running or not. There was a period in Northern Ireland when there was an election every year. We need a good register in which the community can have confidence.
	I am very concerned about clause 3(1)(a), which proposes that a canvass must be conducted in 2010,
	unless the Secretary of State makes an order providing that the requirement in this paragraph does not apply.
	Why would the Secretary of State want to take such a power into his hands? Whenever I read proposals such as this, they lead me to believe that the Secretary of State could lay himself open to the suspicion that he was meddling with the register for political purposes. That would not be a good idea. Will the Minister think again about conferring that power on the Secretary of State?

Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that neither the Secretary of State nor the registration officer should be allowed, without accepted criteria being agreed, to determine what is in the public interest?

William McCrea: Yes, I accept that. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The Minister should think very hard before pushing that provision.

Peter Robinson: I suspect that the Minister will tell us that we are not moving from compiling a register based on an annual canvass to compiling one based on a 10-year canvass. Instead, we are moving from annual registration to a completely different system, in which a lot more data are being sucked in to the electoral office so that it can produce a more accurate register. While we accept that, the key issue is that we do not know how well the new system will work. Should we have to wait 10 years to correct it if it does not work well? There is a good case to be made for conducting a canvass more often, especially at the beginning of the new system.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with the case that he has made.
	In conclusion, I ask the Government to reconsider conferring the power on the Secretary of State in clause 3(1)(a). Furthermore, we support Her Majesty's Opposition in their proposal for a canvass every five years.

David Hanson: I hope that I shall be able to reassure hon. Members on these matters. The integrity of the ballot is the prime objective of the Government in our actions to date and in those proposed in the Bill. The integrity of the ballot means that hon. Members who come to this House or to the Assembly, or who sit on local councils, do so because their peers have put a cross by their name legitimately. I emphasise to the Committee that that is the Government's paramount concern. Electoral fraud will poison the system, and I find it unacceptable to have people voting in elections when they are not entitled to do so, or perpetrating electoral fraud in any way, shape or form. I hope that that statement of the Government's objective will reassure hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) asked why we had decided to conduct a canvass in 2010. Clause 2 abolishes the annual canvass. Clause 3 proposes that the next canvass should be not in 2006when the next annual canvass would have taken placebut in 2016. For the very reasons that hon. Members have mentioned today, we are proposing that there be the possibility of an interim canvass in 2010 as a backstop, should it prove necessary to conduct one at that stage. That would be four years after 2006, which should meet the objectives of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). The year 2010 was chosen simply because it is between 2006, when the next annual canvass would have taken place had clause 2 not been agreed to, and 2016, when the next proposed canvass will take place. The debate now revolves round the 10-year period between 2010 and 2020.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister accepts that it might be necessary to have a canvass in 2010, given that the next one was to have been in 2006. Why should a 10-year period be instituted after 2010? Why not continue to use a four or five-year period throughout?

David Hanson: I am coming to that point. That is the nub of the argument put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
	Clause 3(2) states:
	A canvass under section 10(1A) must be conducted in an intervening year if
	(a)
	on or before 15th April in that year, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland has made a recommendation in favour of a canvass being conducted in that year for the purpose of meeting the relevant registration objectives.
	The chief electoral officer will have the power to recommend a canvass in any year to maintain the integrity of the register, if he or she determines that the integrity of the register requires it. So the power is there, should the need arise for the electoral officer to make that recommendation to the Secretary of State.

William McCrea: rose

David Lidington: rose

David Hanson: I should like to finish the point.
	Clause 4 contains clear registration objectives that place conditions on the chief electoral officer to ensure that every person voting is entitled to vote, that everyone on the register is entitled to be there, and that none of the required information relating to a registered person is false. We have set out clear criteria for the registration officer to look at the integrity of the register, and if they feel that a further canvass is necessary, they will be able to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

William McCrea: If the chief electoral officer believed that such a canvass were essential, could the Secretary of State overrule him and say, No, we will not have a canvass? Surely the Secretary of State should not be able to overrule a firm recommendation from the chief electoral officer that a canvass were necessary to maintain the integrity of the register.

David Hanson: I appreciate that. Clause 3 provides for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that conducting such a canvass would be in the public interest. In my view, the Secretary of State will need to have the power, as a backstop, to make such a decision in the public interest.

Several hon. Members: rose

David Hanson: I shall just finish the point. It would be a brave Secretary of State who went against the recommendation of the chief electoral officer, but the power will exist for him to do so if he judges that it is in the public interest. Later amendments will deal with that point.

Patrick Cormack: That brings us back to the pro-consular point that I made earlier. I am not casting aspersions, but we all know that Great Britain has an Electoral Commission to which the Government refer and which they sometimes ignore. There is absolutely no guarantee that the Secretary of State would accept the recommendation of the chief electoral officer, and there are no criteria as to what constitutes the public interest. I have great personal regard for the Minister, but I find unconvincing his explanations of why we cannot specify 2010 and not leave the matter open, and why there is such a limitation on the power of the electoral registration officer.

David Hanson: I am happy to pursue this discussion, but the next group of amendments deals with the matter, and it may be more appropriate to discuss it at a later stage.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is absolutely right. It would be more appropriate to deal with the matter under the next group of amendments.

David Hanson: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and I shall try to address it shortly, but I feel that it would be more appropriate to do so when we come to the next group.

Laurence Robertson: Going back to the previous point, the Minister said that the Secretary of State could override the decision or recommendation of the chief electoral officer. That worried me a little, because the Secretary of State will appoint the chief electoral officer, unlike the police ombudsman, for example, so the relationship is a little incestuous.

David Hanson: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that the Secretary of State remains accountable to the House. In the unlikely event of the electoral registration officer recommending a canvass and the Secretary of State saying no, for whatever reason, the Secretary of State will remain accountable to the House for that decision. That accountability will provide for discussion, debate, censure, votes and everything else. The principle is that there may be a range of overriding public interests that mean that the Secretary of State wishes to examine the issues. [Interruption.] I am happy to give examples, but I shall be straying into the next group of amendments. I am happy to do that, but I feel that it might try your patience, Mrs. Heal.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has indicated that the electoral officer could have an extra canvass as and when he saw fit. I assume that, if the Bill is passed, the electoral officer will be resourced for a 10-year canvass. Where would the resources come from if the electoral officer decided to have an interim canvass?

David Hanson: Again, that may be one of the issues that the Secretary of State determines is in the overriding public interest. I am straying again into the next set of amendments; I am being dragged there from hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. I am happy to deal with these matters, but I shall follow your guidance, Mrs. Heal, as they are dealt with in later amendments.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that the amendments that we are discussing relate to the timing of the canvass. That is what we should be concentrating on.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I make the following suggestion as I think that it may help the Committee and you. Having chaired many Standing Committees over the years, I know that it sometimes makes sense to regroup amendments, even during a debate. As the two issues are so closely related to each other, I wonder whether it might be better if we were able to touch on them all now.

The First Deputy Chairman: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he has much experience in Standing Committees. In this instance, however, I feel that it is important that we keep the two matters separate. We will therefore discuss the timing now and, as the Minister indicated, deal with public interest in discussing the subsequent amendments.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.

Eddie McGrady: I do not want to repeat the various points that have already been made. Surely, the essence of what is being debated at this moment, irrespective of what will arise under clause 4, is the independence of the chief electoral officer. If his decisions are subject to questioning and agreement or non-agreement by the Secretary of State, he will simply not be independent. If the Minister wishes to pursue the autonomous rule of the Secretary of State in that regard, will he consider introducing some appeal mechanism or forum to determine whether the so-called public interest is of sufficient seriousness to override a considered opinion of the chief electoral officer?

David Hanson: The points that my hon. Friend mentioned are certainly important, but I am again in danger of straying on to the next group of amendments. I say to all hon. Members that the principle before the Committee is the abolition of the canvass in 2006 and, in principle, a 10-year period between canvasses. That would mean that the next canvass would be in 2016. For purposes of the check, we have picked 2010 for a potential canvass to ensure the integrity of the electoral register, but we feel that the Secretary of State could consider a further annual canvass or an interim canvass if the chief electoral officer made a recommendation to that effect.
	If you will allow me, Mrs. Heal, I shall again refer to a later clause. In proposed new section 10ZB(1) to the 1983 Act, clause 4 sets objectives for the electoral officer. It refers to ensuring
	that every person who is entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it . . . that no person who is not entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it, and . . . that none of the required information relating to any person registered in a register is false.
	Those clear criteria are set for the duties of the electoral officer. If the electoral officer feels that the register in any year from 2006 does not meet those objectives, he will have a duty under the legislation to make proposals to the Secretary of State for an interim canvass.
	I understand that hon. Members share my wish for integrity in the electoral registration system in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but if the electoral officer believes on grounds set out in clause 4 that the register is failing, he will have not only the right, but the duty, to go to the Secretary of State and request an annual canvass. It would be a very foolish Secretary of State who would refuse that requestalthough the power is there for him to exercise it if he so wishes.

Patrick Cormack: As there is such disquiet in all parts of the Committeeall the Northern Ireland parties that participate in the House have made the pointwhy cannot we fix the 2010 date instead of making it an option? That would help to engender confidence in what the Government are seeking to do. If we can fix on 2010, we can obviously still look at the matter again before 2010. If it seems desirable to go to 2020that is very unlikelythen fair enough, but let us fix on 2010 and not make it an option.

David Hanson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I ask him to look again at proposed new subsection (2) in clause 3, which states:
	A canvass under section 10(1A) must
	I emphasise the word must
	be conducted in an intervening year
	if a recommendation has been made by the chief electoral officer. The canvass will be conducted in
	the year 2010, unless the Secretary of State makes an order,
	and a
	canvass under section 10(1A) must be conducted . . . unless the Secretary of State makes an order.
	The Secretary of State will make an order only if the recommendation is forthcoming from the chief electoral officer. I put to hon. Members the fact that the onus and responsibility lie with the chief electoral officer, who has duties under later clauses to ensure the integrity of the register. If he feels that the register is not truly correct and is failing, he has the power and duty to ask the Secretary of state to continue with the canvass. The proposal to fix an interim canvass is unnecessary, because we have 2010 fixed, and we have the potential for an interim canvass if required and for the chief electoral officer to bring it forward.

Patrick Cormack: The fact is that we do not. There is the option, but no fixed 2010 date. If there were such a date, there would be general consensus in Committee. I can see from the nodding heads around me that people would be tolerably satisfied. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Bill as currently drafted does not insist on 2010, which is an option.

David Hanson: There is an honest disagreement between us on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at clause 3(1)(a), he will see that it says:
	A canvass under section 10(1A) must be conducted in the year 2010, unless the Secretary of State makes an order providing that the requirement . . . does not apply.
	The Secretary of State will only do that for two reasons. First, he would act on the recommendation of the chief electoral officer. Secondly, the power is exercisable only by statutory instrument, which would come before the House anyway.

Patrick Cormack: But the point is that the Secretary of State has the overriding power. I hope that this will not be construed as an attack on the current or any future Secretary of State; we just believe that it is wrong to give that power to a Secretary of State. Were there no option, we would all be tolerably satisfied. For goodness' sake, the Minister should at least undertake to consider the matter with a view to introducing a Government amendment in the House of Lords.

David Hanson: Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that there is a disagreement between us. First, the canvass in 2010 can be cancelled only by order of the Secretary of State through a statutory instrument, which will come before the House. Secondly, that will happen only if the chief electoral officer recommends it. That is a double safeguard, which I hope that he and other Members will accept.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has asked us to place some reliance on clause 3(1)(a). If we consider clause 3(3), however, we see that the Secretary of State's powers make it possible that such a canvass might not be conducted before 2015. The Bill asks us to consider that it might not just be a case of the Secretary of State letting it slip for a year. I accept that there might be a case for not proceeding in 2010, because were the 2010 electoral canvass to be done in the autumn, which is the traditional time, that would run close to the public information build-up to the 2011 census. At that stage even the devolved Administrationif there is onemight seek some change.

David Hanson: Again, if the Government had wished to have a 10-year canvass in the first instance, we would not have put the provision in place for a potential canvass in 2010. Under clause 2, we are abolishing the annual canvass; there will be a canvass in 2006 and every 10 years. The Bill provides for the possibility of a canvass in 2010, for the very reasons mentioned by hon. Members, but we retain the right for that canvass not to take place if the Secretary of State is advised by the chief electoral officer that one is not needed.

William McCrea: If the chief electoral officer has a duty in relation to favouring a canvass, why should the Secretary of State have the power to override that?

David Hanson: Again, we are straying into later clauses and amendments, but the Secretary of State has an overriding duty to consider the broad picture, the needs of Northern Ireland and of this House and a range of matters. The Secretary of State has that power, but the circumstances in which the chief electoral officer would recommend the canvass and the Secretary of State would say, No, thanks, we're not going to have one, would be very limited. It would be a brave Secretary of State who exercised those powers. There might be circumstances, however, which we will talk about under later clauses, in which the Secretary of State might want to take those powers.

Lembit �pik: I might have been digging earlier, but I see a hole developing next to the Minister. There is now an inference that there could be a political motivation for not taking the register. There can be no other possible reason for giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to disregard the advice of the chief electoral officer. I want to press the Minister on this salient point. Can he give us a single example of circumstances in which he imagines the Secretary of State would need the power to overrule the chief electoral officer's guidance?

David Hanson: For whatever reason, the Secretary of State might determine that on financial grounds. [Hon. Members: Ah!] It is possible; I am not saying that that would be the case. In 2004, the cost of the canvass was 1.7 million. I am not saying that the Secretary of State would make a determination against the recommendation of the chief electoral officer, but that is a public consideration for this House. The chief electoral officer might make a recommendation that the Secretary of State felt, in the circumstances at the time, was not worth 1.7 million. That will not be a determination, but it is a consideration.

David Lidington: Surely, in those or other circumstances that we cannot foresee, it would be open to a future Secretary of State to come to Parliament and ask for primary legislation to be introduced, and if necessary expedited, as has happened with Northern Ireland legislation in the past and as will happen in the next couple of weeks. That would enable the dispensation to be granted by a parliamentary decision rather than just by the Secretary of State acting on his own account.

David Hanson: Again, should the Secretary of State determine to do that, a statutory instrument, which would come before the House for consideration, would be required to cancel the canvass in 2010. Parliament would therefore be able to monitor the Secretary of State's decision. That statutory instrument would be taken in Committee, and could be referred to and debated on the Floor of the House. It would be voted on by the House. I am simply saying to all Members that the Secretary of State has the ability to override the recommendation should he or she wish to do so. I would not have included in the Bill the ability to have a canvas in 2010 if we did not feel that that was needed. We now envisage that there will be one in 2010, and on a 10-year basis after that, unless the chief electoral officer recommends otherwise, which it is in his power to do; again, I emphasise that that would be difficult for the Secretary of State to overturn.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister is making a valiant effort, but failing. Can he not understand that the confidence of the people of the Province of Northern Ireland is fundamental to the success of this legislation? We all know very well that it is unlikely that there will be a Secretary of State from Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. We do not complain about that. We all know very well that it is perfectly possible, certainly for the immediate future, that the Government will have a large majority. We have already said that the Order-in-Council procedure is wholly unsatisfactory, as it is determined upstairs by a relatively small number of Members without the opportunity for amendment, so there is a lack of confidence in the system. When we pass primary legislation, surely it is important to ensure the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. Why can we not get rid of this qualification clause and fix on 2010?

David Hanson: Again, I have tried to explain in detail why the power for the Secretary of State is needed. I will deal with that in more detail under the next set of amendments. The Government are committed to making sure that the electoral register is intact, paramount and legitimate in every way, shape and form. The original purpose of the annual canvass was to ensure that. We have given an assurance that an annual canvass will take place next year, and every 10 years subsequently. As a backstop, we have provided for a canvas in 2010a date picked randomly, I say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Tewkesburyand for an examination of whether a canvass is needed at that stage to maintain the integrity of that register. If it is needed, it will happen. If it is not needed, according to the chief electoral officer, it will not happen. The Secretary of State has the power to examine the wider public interest at the time, but we would not have put that in the legislation if we had not wished to ensure the integrity of the register. At any time, the chief electoral officer can say, based on his or her obligations under clause 4, that the register is not up to standard, and that the canvass needs to be undertaken to refresh it fully. I hope that that assures hon. Members and that they will withdraw their amendments.

William McCrea: Before the Minister finishes, will he deal with the question of a five-year rather than a 10-year period? He has constantly referred to 10 years, but there is a consensus across the Committee that 10 years is much too long for the integrity of the register to be maintained. Why do the Government insist on retaining the 10-year period regardless of what we say? If an amendment providing for a five-year period were tabled in the other place, would the Government not consider that a more sensible option than a stand-up fight?

David Hanson: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not in my nature to stand up and fight on issues unless they are issues of extreme principle. In my opinion, this is a question of the management of the electoral register. The position is that there will be a canvass every 10 years from 2010or a canvass in 2006 and another in 2016, depending on what happens. If the chief electoral officer chooses to recommend an earlier canvass, after five years, the Secretary of State will have to reflect on that view and agree or not agree; but the onus will always be on the chief electoral officer to examine the legitimacy of the register on the basis of the criteria in clause 4.
	It is a simple matter. We expect a canvass to be conducted every 10 years. If the chief electoral officer suggests that the canvass should be conducted earlier, the Secretary of State will have to consider the request and make a case for or against it.

Lembit �pik: The fact that this discussion has continued for nearly half an hour gives a good clue to the fact that there is something amiss. The Minister has given an example of circumstances in which financial expediency might cause the Secretary of State to overrule the guidance of the chief electoral officer, who, after all, must take account of what is reasonable and practicable. The Minister, like me, knows very well that canvass data becomes outdated very quickly, and 10 years would be a ludicrously long time not to update it. May I suggest a way out of the problem? Before the Bill goes to the other place, may we have a chance to discuss and reflect on the issues and try to establish a more consensual approach? It is obvious to me that the Minister is doing his best, but not succeeding in convincing a number of Members who feel that the Government have not quite got it right.

David Hanson: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. I know that he has my best interests at heart, and that he is looking after me and supporting me fully. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has my best interests, and those of the Government, at heart. However, we have made a judgment. We thought about the matter carefully, and we feel that the 10-year period is sufficient. We have taken account of the fact that the chief electoral officer may make the request. I admit that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to refuse that request, under a range of provisions with which we shall deal later, but I believe that the fact of the request being made would weigh heavily on the mind of a Secretary of State.
	I return to the original principle. The legitimacy of the electoral register is paramount to the democracy of the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland, and it is therefore central to what the Government are supporting. I hope that those who tabled the amendments will not press them to a vote, but if they do, I will encourage my hon. Friends to vote against them. There is potential for further discussions later, if that is what hon. Members want.

Lady Hermon: I am terribly sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I have certainly not been persuaded by his arguments, and I will not withdraw amendment No. 26. I hope and expect that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) feels the same.
	The Minister was totally unconvincing. It would have helped if he had done a bit of homework, and reflected on what was said by the Secretary of State less than a month ago. Let me refresh his memory. If I recall correctly, he was present when the Secretary of State gave the House the following assurance:
	We want to modernise still further the registration arrangements in Northern Ireland, safeguarding the dramatic improvements in the accuracy of the register . . . In allowing us to do this, the registration clauses of the Bill go to the heart of increasing trust and engagement in the political and democratic process.[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1174.]
	However, this afternoon the Minister, who was listening carefully, will have noticed that not a single voiceapart from hiswas heard in support of clause 3. It is regrettable that, in quoting from the part that refers to the power of the chief electoral officer, he omitted the crucial word and between paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2). It is not just a question of the wish of the chief electoral officer; he must abide by very relevant registration objectives specified in clause 4. For instance, heor she: we are to appoint a new chief electoral officermay fear that entries in the register are false. Clause 4 imposes objectives and obligations on thechief electoral officer, and consequently any recommendation for the Secretary of State to arrange an earlier canvass has been made with very good reason.
	When pressed by various hon. Members, the Minister used an unfortunate phrase. He said that the public interest might just boil down to financial interests. Democracy does not come cheap. As an elector in Northern Ireland, I am offendedas my constituents will bethat a Minister of the British Government should say in the House of Commons that the public interest might mean that an up-to-date accurate register was too expensive.

David Hanson: I used that as one example, because we are talking about 1.7 million people. There may be many related examples, with which we may deal later. As the hon. Lady will see if she reads Hansard in due course, I did say that it would be a brave Secretary of State who refused the recommendation of the chief electoral officer.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that attempt to clarify the issue, but he was able to give only one example of the public interest. On two consecutive occasions, he referred to financial interests. That is most regrettable.
	The Minister says that it would be a bravea courageousSecretary of State who used the power for which the Bill provides. The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to override the chief electoral officer if the Secretary of State
	is satisfied that the public interest requires a canvass.
	That is in clause 3(2)(b). The clause does not state that the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds for his belief, or that any other considerations should be taken into account. It merely states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is an overriding public interest before setting aside the chief electoral officer's recommendation.
	That wording is carefully chosen. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, given the inbuilt Government majority, resistance to any order presented to the House in the form of delegated legislation would have no chance of success. Moreover, having been subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure, it would be beyond challenge in the courts. Only the Secretary of State need be satisfied; there are no reviewable objectives or reasonable grounds to determine what constitutes the public interest in this clause.
	For all those reasons, and having been completely unpersuaded by the Government's response to legitimate concerns expressed from every part of the Committee, I intend to press my amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 214, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert
	'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) the public interest is the requirement to meet the relevant registration objectives as set out in section 4.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 27, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert
	'(2A) When considering a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (2)(a) above, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to prevention of electoral fraud with a presumption that prevention of electoral fraud is in the public interest.'.
	No. 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert
	'(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) the public interest is the requirement to meet the relevant registration objectives as set out in section 4.'.

Laurence Robertson: These amendments are similar to the ones in the previous group, and it was perhaps unfortunate that we could not consider them all at the same time. I do not want to try your patience, Mrs. Heal, but I suspect that it is to some degree inevitable that we might have revisit some of the arguments presented previously.
	We had a long debate on the timing of the canvass. The annual canvass has been abolished: it is now proposed to hold a canvass in 2010, and possibly in intervening years as well, unless the Secretary of States makes an order providing that that requirement does not apply. In intervening years, the chief electoral officer can recommend that a canvass should be conducted, but it will take place only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public interest requires it. Indeed, the 2010 canvass can be cancelled if the Secretary of State, having considered the CEO's recommendation, is satisfied that the public interest does not require it.
	Hon. Members from all parties have expressed concern about what the term the public interest means. That is an important matter in Great Britain, but the fact that citizens in Northern Ireland have generally been treated less well in legal terms than their counterparts in Great Britain means that the vagueness of the term arouses even more concern. I have tabled these amendments to tease out from the Minister the circumstances under which the 2010 canvass, or a canvass in an intervening year, might not take place. I accept that the requirement to keep the debate relevant to the amendments under discussion limited his opportunity to expand on that previously, and I hope that he will be able to say more this time.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to aim for normality, in Northern Ireland even more than in any other part of the UK? Providing for exceptions using a phrase as vague as the public interest is, prima facie, rather dangerous. Does he accept that the Government would need a very strong reason for making an exception, especially given that this Bill is in respect of Northern Ireland?

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. As I tried to explain, using the term public interest in respect of Great Britain is unacceptably wide; to use it in terms of Northern Ireland requires some explanation, with good reason to support it.
	As I said in an intervention earlier, I am a little concerned about the independence of the chief electoral officer. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I fast-forward to clause 8 which states:
	The Chief Electoral Officer . . . is appointed by the Secretary of State . . . A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for more than 5 years at a time.
	Furthermore, he cannot hold office for more than 10 years. By comparison, the police ombudsman is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, although I accept that it is by recommendationno doubt from the Secretary of State. Why is the situation different for the chief electoral officer?
	Clause 8 does not lead us to believe that the CEO would be independent. As I noted earlier, the relationship between the CEO and the Secretary of State will be somewhat incestuous. The Minister says that the 2010 canvass would be cancelled only if the CEO had made a recommendation against it, but surely in the real world the Secretary of State could put pressure on the CEO if he thought it appropriate.
	I am concerned about the situation, although as we explored it in great depth during the previous debate I shall not repeat the arguments, but will the Minister give us some examples of what the public interest would mean under the clause? He gave a financial example to show why the 2010 canvass might not take place. He has just had several minutes to discuss other possible examples with officials and colleagues, so I hope that he can offer some to show why he feels that the Secretary of State would overrule the CEO. In particular, will he give us his interpretation of what the public interest would actually mean?

Lady Hermon: I shall address my remarks to my amendment No. 27. I remind the Minister that just over a month ago, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State gave us this assurance about measures for the registration of voters:
	The measures broadly mirror change being introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Electoral Administration Bill, as the Government believe that it is right that the citizens of Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights as those of the rest of the UK.[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1175.]
	As the Minister reflects on the words of his esteemed colleague, he may care to try to reconcile the differences between the Electoral Administration Bill and this Bill, especially clause 3, under which the Secretary of State has exclusively been given the power to override a decision of the chief electoral officer in the public interestwhatever that will mean. The Minister has of course assured us that it means more than a financial interest, although he mentioned financial interests twice in our earlier debate, so we wait with bated breath to hear what else might amount to public interest.
	The Minister may also care to study the Electoral Administration Bill, currently in another place, to which his colleague referred to on 13 March, for a direct comparison in respect of the rights that the people of Northern Ireland should have. There is no provision for a Secretary of State in any other part of the United Kingdom to override the collection of information by an electoral officer. Will the Minister address that inconsistency?
	I dislike subsection (2)(b) of clause 3 and the Minister would be well advised to remove it. The inclusion of a reference to the Secretary of State having power to override the decision of the chief electoral officer in the public interest has caused enormous annoyance among Members who have spoken. Only the Government are in favour of the provision. If the Minister does not heed our advice, I urge him to ensure that my amendment No. 27 is adopted, because at least it indicates that where the chief electoral officer is concerned about electoral fraud the presumption will be that a canvass is in the public interest to eradicate that fraud. The matter would be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by the person most keenly interested in having a valid, proper, up-to-date, modern electoral registerthe chief electoral officer.
	My amendment reads:
	When considering a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (2)(a) above, the Secretary of State must
	that is an obligation and a duty
	have particular regard to prevention of electoral fraud with a presumption that prevention of electoral fraud is in the public interest.
	It is inconceivable that the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and say that the prevention of electoral fraud was not in the public interest. He can make no logical objection to such a sensible amendment.
	I would prefer that subsection (2)(b) was withdrawn altogether and deleted from the face of the Bill. However, if the Minister insists on it, I ask him to adopt my amendment to make quite sure that when the chief electoral officer indicates his or her wish to eradicate electoral fraud, it will be in the public interest to hold a canvass.

Mark Durkan: The Minister will obviously be aware from the previous debate that there is real suspicion and concern that the Bill gives the Secretary of State significant override powers when the concept of public interest is not defined. Going on form rather than faith, it would be hard to trust any Secretary of State who had such sweeping powers, especially in circumstances where the Secretary of State was not required to exercise them in a defined and clear contextwhere there was no clear working premise for the exercise of such powers. If the Minister wants us to believe any of the reassurances, I am sure he will accept the amendments, which would define the public interest.
	In his closing contribution on the last group of amendments, the Minister told us that the integrity of the registration process must be paramount, yet he offered as the only specific public interest consideration that would lead the Secretary of State to override the recommendation of the chief electoral officer a financial considerationthat in the circumstances, 1.7 million might too much to uphold the integrity of the registration process, which is said to be paramount.
	The amendments would ensure that the terms used by the Minister are extended to the Bill. If it is good enough for Members to be asked to accept his assurance, it should be good enough for him to include it in the Bill on behalf of Members. That is the point of the amendments, which seek a clear definition of the public interest. We know from so many other occasions that when it is not defined, we are treated to those empty but supposedly magic words, the public interest.
	When parliamentarians demand answers and explanations, the explanation that we are given is the public interest. Parliament is not allowed proper debate, scrutiny, consideration and exposure of the issues involved. The concept of the public interest is meant to protect the public from stupid decisions, not from proper parliamentary scrutiny. I ask the Minister to accept these reasonable, sensible amendments, which are entirely consistent with the arguments that he made. He cannot ask us to believe those arguments, and then reject the amendments and call on his colleagues to vote against them.
	I was trying to be helpful, perhaps in a dangerous way, when I pointed out to the Minister that there are other public interest considerations that might influence the chief electoral officer and perhaps even the Secretary of State when it comes to adjusting dates. The clauses that we have just passed permit a general canvass before 2010, as opposed to just after 2010. A census is due in 2011. I accept that there could be a number of practical issues in relation to 2010 that would give rise to legitimate questions of public interest.
	If the chief electoral officer is to undertake a general canvass in the autumn of 2010, he will be trying to marshal many of the same canvass personnel as will be employed in the census in the spring of 2011. That gives rise to issues of comparable remuneration and pay rates. That was an issue when I, as Minister for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, was handling the census in 2001. There are also issues of public communication. In the run-up to the general canvass in 2010, will that be confused with the public information that has been issued in the build-up to the census in the spring of 2011? There could well be good reason for bringing the general canvass forward to 2009, for example.
	Various public interest questions are involved, but when it comes to decisions about electoral registration, the paramount consideration must be not whether it is for the convenience of people carrying out the canvass, but whether optimum working conditions will be created for the chief electoral officer to ensure that a proper registration canvass is carried out.
	If the Secretary of State has powers to overrule the chief electoral officer, possibly for unstated reasons, or to ignore his recommendation, and if those powers are combined with those given later in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take control of the appointment of the chief electoral officer and to dismiss that officer, a potential twilight zone begins to emerge.
	One of the things that we are constantly shown on television is the famous Jeremy Paxman interview with the former Home Secretary and former leader of the Conservative party about whether he did or did not threaten to overrule the former head of the prison service, and whether or not there were implications or suggestions about this, that or the other.
	We see a twilight zone where all sorts of scenarios that are suggestive and reminiscent of what is implied by those questions might well arise. We might not be dealing with the same the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a number of years' time. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is also the Secretary of State for Wales. We know from previous proposed departmental reconstructions that the Government have thought about doing something along the lines of the BBC's director of nations and regions, by putting together some of the territorial ministries. We could well find that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be housed in future in some mutation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is the Department where overall responsibility for electoral administration resides.
	If the precedent is created that a Minister in that Department has powers to appoint, dismiss, override and ignore the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, hon. Members from my side of the water need to consider the precedent into which they might be sleepwalking if they accept what is being offered. So I ask the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to think again and to think better, not just with eye to the situation that would unfold, but because of the very awkward and dangerous precedent that might be created more widely.

Lembit �pik: As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed out, this is something that we have covered to a fairly large extent. The issue is fairly simple. Of course, the Minister has the opportunity to provoke us into a vote if he wants. I hope that he does not take that opportunity. I hope instead that he takes the common-sense position.
	Why will the Government not accept these points? They have just won a vote that will give the Secretary of State the power to overrule the chief electoral officer with regard to the 2010 canvass. I am sure that the Minister would not be so brash as to deny the common-sense nature of all three amendments in this string. Either the Minister accepts the principle of the amendments, in which case we can move on quickly to the next clause, or he must explain why he wants to give the Secretary of State the political wriggle room to define public interest.
	The Government and the Minister very well know that there is a degree of cynicism among some hon. Members about the manipulation of things such as election dates in Northern Ireland for political reasons. Many of us think that the Government entered an entirely counter-productive pathway, by changing the date of the election to help the Ulster Unionist party, thus delivering to the Democratic Unionist party the exact result that we could all see would happen, to the DUP's great credit. So the Government have some form, in that they have wanted some wriggle room for political advantage.
	At the heart of this set of amendments is surely the principle that the Secretary of State must not have political wriggle room in matters of public interest in relation to the avoidance of electoral fraud. Therefore, I echo the question already raised by the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Tewkesbury; will the Minister accept the amendment and, if not, what possible motivation could the Government have to try to build political wriggle room into something as important as the probity of the electoral canvass?

Patrick Cormack: A few years ago, there was a great deal of debate in the House about what were called Henry VIII clauses. This, in effect, is a Henry VIII clause, because it will give the Secretary of State total power to interpret two words that can have the broadest and most general of meanings in a variety of contextspublic interest. The Secretary of State of the day who will decide what those two words mean.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said a moment or two ago, we have had examples of the political interpretation of those words. Earlier this afternoon, we had a quite absurd example of a financial consideration, when the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government could decide that 1.7 millionthe price of modest London flatis too much to spend on counteracting fraud.

Lembit �pik: That would not be modest for me.

Patrick Cormack: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it would not be modest for me, either.
	We all know from the property columns of newspapers that 1.7 million does not buy an awful lot these days[Interruption.] That is absolutely true. One need look only at the rather frightening property columns in almost any newspaper to realise that in all parts of the country, including the Minister's constituency, many properties are selling for that amount. That illustration is certainly less fatuous than the Minister's when he said that 1.7 million might be too much to spend to avoid fraud.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, prima facie, the public interest in the north of Ireland should be the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that making this sort of distinction is basically wrongnot just marginally, but fundamentally wrong?

Patrick Cormack: I agree completely. I have said many times during my time as Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that we want Northern Ireland to be a normal part of the UK, in the same way that Wales, Scotland and England are. At the moment, it is manifestly not and what we are debating now is a further illustration of the problem, which perpetuates the position and is fundamentally wrong.
	If I have to accept these words about the public interest in the BillI would much rather they were taken out and wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Down in saying thatthey must be precise, specific and defined. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for North Down have both attempted to provide definitions. I hope that neither of them will take it in bad part if I say that they are imperfect attempts to create the definitions, but at least they are genuine attempts to do so.
	The very least that the Minister should do this afternoon, if he cannot undertake to remove the entire provisionI agree absolutely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said a few moments agois to affirm that the Government will take the problem away for further consideration and seek to table amendments in the other place to encapsulate the amendments of both the hon. Member for North Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. If he wants to satisfy us, he should take it even further and call in the spokesmen for all the major political parties in Northern Ireland, see them either individually or collectively, and properly discuss the business of the public interest to see what can be agreed. After all, the Government set great store on finding consensus at the moment and are embarking on a series of talks. If it is so important to do so, which I fully accept, in respect of the operation of devolution, it is of equal importance to embark on talks that will lead to a consensus in respect of legislation passed by the House.
	I hope that the Minister will give us a much more satisfactory reply than he gave us about half an hour ago at the end of the previous group of amendments. I hope that the House will not need to divide again, but if the Minister fails to give us a satisfactory reply I fear that it will probably have to do so.

William McCrea: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and I believe that the Minister has been given the necessary room to act in good faith. I have no doubt, from what the Minister has already said, that he is speaking in good faith in so far as he sees the situation. I wish to make it clear that what we are saying is not an attack on the personal integrity of the present Secretary of State or any successor. We are talking about the powers given to the Secretary of State generally.
	Clause 3 tells us that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that conducting a canvass meets the public interest. In other words, the public interest is defined by the Secretary of State, but surely it is the community that has to be satisfied that the public interest is being met and we need an appropriate rather than a political interpretation. Let us remove all ambiguity by having a clear definition and a clear interpretation of what public interest really means.
	We all know in Northern Ireland of the talks involving a certain gentleman who used to be in the House and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the then leader of the SDLP and Sinn Fein. They came out of the talks and said, Look at what we've got. One said one thing and another said the very opposite. One claimed that the talks had resulted in a securing of the Union and the other said that they were a major step towards a united Ireland. That leaves suspicion. We are talking about removing electoral fraud and about a register that will be involved in the election of representatives to Stormont, Westminster and local government. Therefore, it must have integrity and the community must have confidence in it.
	Recently, we heard that prosecutions had been withdrawn because it was not in the public interest to continue with them. What does it all mean? The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) touched on this a moment ago, because we did try to find out what the words public interest meant. We could not have a debate about that here; we were not allowed a debate. Therefore, it is important to get crystal clear what we are talking about. The Secretary of State will be given power and he has to be satisfied that the public interest is met. Surely, on behalf of the electorate of Northern Ireland and through their parliamentarians here, we should nail what the public interest really means.
	I ask the Minister not to go to the wire. As was suggested by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I make an appeal for a relevant change to be brought forward in the other place to satisfy the reasonable demands that have been made. I trust that the Minister accepts that we are also talking in good faith and that the Government could give way on the rational and reasonable demands that we are making.

David Hanson: I again thank hon. Members for their contributions in highlighting the issue before us. However, I have to say that I have the impression that my response will disappoint hon. Members.

William McCrea: Again.

David Hanson: Yes, again. I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) again[Interruption.]and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for North Down (Lady Hermon), for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) again[Interruption.]and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and any other Members in the House.

Laurence Robertson: It may have escaped the Minister's attention, but he has named virtually everyone who has taken part in any debate in the House today.

David Hanson: I am afraid that, again, I will have to disappoint hon. Members.
	Points have been raised in the House and we had a full three-month consultation on the document. I met the political parties who wished to see me about the document and, at no stage in the consultation or in the meetings that I had with hon. Members about this topic, did any hon. Member or anyone else raise this point about the Secretary of State. I recognise that the House has primacy and a role in discussing these matters, but I simply put on the record that nobody has raised these points before today.

John Gummer: Does the Minister accept that every person who has spoken on this issue has made the same clear point and that we are dealing with the delicate matter of the normalcy of Northern Ireland? Could he not therefore accept that, on this occasion, the only people who are on his side are not here, not speaking or have no view? Does that not embarrass him?

David Hanson: I am grateful for that contribution. If the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had been present for the debate on the previous group of amendments, he would have heard a full discussion of similar issues.

William McCrea: Surely the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) should also be told that the Benches behind the Minister were empty then and nobody, but nobody, in the House spoke up for his proposal. He was on his own on that occasion, as well.

David Hanson: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I was not on my ownI had 290 colleagues in the Lobby with me. They have full confidence in my position in putting forward these proposals on behalf of the Government today.
	Serious issues have been raised by hon. Members. I hope that what I am about to say will also address the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. The purpose of this set of amendments is to remove the Secretary of State from the equation. The Secretary of State will act on a recommendation from the chief electoral officer.

Laurence Robertson: This set of amendments is intended not to remove the role of the Secretary of State, but to define the words public interest.

David Hanson: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the previous debate and this debate have essentially been about removing the Secretary of State's role.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with this. He is living in the recent past, when apparently 290 of his colleagues were all watching the debate on television and, unlike any single person in the Chamber, were convinced by his argument. The difficulty in this case is that we are not seeking to eliminate the Secretary of State from the process; we are seeking to define the conditions that have to be fulfilled, to understand clearly what a breach of public interest means. The Minister cannot hide behind his words. He needs to address the words used in the amendment and explain why he does not want clearly to define what public interest means in this circumstance.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is the only Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber. He is obviously speaking on behalf of all his colleagues, as I am on behalf of mine.
	The debate and the amendments are about the Secretary of State's role in monitoring the process. In the debate on the previous set of amendments, I said that the recommendation from the chief electoral officer will go to the Secretary of State, who can, if he wants, override those wishes on the ground that he is satisfied that that is in the public interest. I have given examples. PotentiallyI am simply saying potentiallypublic interest could relate to cost.
	I take the point that the hon. Member for Foyle put to me. I go back to first principles, as I have mentioned. The integrity of the register is paramount. If it is not true and accurate, that taints the quality of the membership of this House and any other elected body. I take the point that he has made. I am simply saying that one aspect of that, potentially, could be for the Secretary of State, at that stage, to consider a cost element. Another aspect of the public interest could be for the Secretary of State to consider the points that were well put by the hon. Member for Foyle in relation to the census and the organisation of that.
	Another aspect of the public interest could arise in the event of a weak chief electoral officer being appointed, who could be lobbied by one or more parties to undertake a canvass and could determine to do so. I am not saying that the chief electoral officer is or will be weak, but the potential could be there. I am simply saying that there are potential areas where the responsibility for the integrity of the electoral register rests with the electoral officer. He may recommend that a canvass is undertaken, but, under this power, a future Secretary of State may determine that the circumstances are not right for that canvass to take place.
	I am simply saying to all hon. Members that the Secretary of State retains that role. As I have indicated, it would be a brave Secretary of State who turned down a recommendation for a canvass by an electoral officer, but I wish to retain the power for him or her to do so because, potentially, the Secretary of State may, at that stage, determine that to be in the public interest.

Lady Hermon: The Minister laboured the point that political parties did not object during the consultation process, but I would be interested to hear what the chief electoral officer saidI assume that he was consulted. Moreover, I would love to hear the reaction of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to the Secretary of State's attempt to override the chief electoral officer's decision and cut across provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights on the obligation to have free elections under conditions that ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people when voting for the legislature.

David Hanson: I recall that the comments of the chief electoral officer indicated that he was happy with the package of measures that we brought forward. However, if the view is contrary to that, I will certainly inform the hon. Lady in due course.

Patrick Cormack: Presumably, the chief electoral officer did not see the Bill before the House of Commons, so the consultations were general. We now have a situation in which the Minister is content that the Secretary of State shall have complete power to interpret the words public interest as he chooses and does not have to explain to anyone how he reaches that decision. He would not have to say that, in his opinion, public interest was this, that and the other. The amendments are an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to give the bones of a definition. The Minister was quite wrong to suggest that we were trying to write the Secretary of State outwe accept, reluctantly, that he is in. All that we want is a clear definition of what the public interest is all about.

David Hanson: I hope that what I say helps the hon. Gentleman because I know that he is trying to be helpful. If the chief electoral officer determined that a canvass should take place, but the Secretary of State determined that it should not, I am sure that the Secretary of State would have to publish his reasons because the chief electoral officer could, if he wished, make public the fact that he had made a recommendation to that effect. The Secretary of State would thus have to argue publicly the reasons why he did not accept the recommendation.
	The phrases involving public interest that have caused hon. Members concern are contestable phrases. The concepts are known to the courts and contestable in the courts, and the Secretary of State would, potentially, have to publish his reasons for disagreeing with the chief electoral officer. Additionally, the Secretary of State's decision could be subject to judicial review in the courts if any individual were so minded to contest that view.

John Gummer: There is nothing in the Bill to say that that would have to happen. The Prime Minister refused to answer a question of mine on the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan with the simple words that it would not be in the public interest to explain why that happened. The answer was outrageous, but there was no explanation of what the public interest was. The Prime Minister decided and applied the public interest and it stood. If that happens in the House of Commons, it will happen elsewhere, and that is why we are suspicious. The citizens of Northern Ireland cannot accept that the words public interest shall be interpreted by the person who will use that interpretation to do what he thinks is in his interest. That is the problem, and unless one divorces the two, the measure will be seen as wrong.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions are getting very lengthy.

David Hanson: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but simply say to him that a public interest decision is contestable. The defence drawn by the Secretary of State could be contestable in the courts. There would be a possibility of judicial review, andI return to this factit would be a very brave Secretary of State who took such a decision.
	The power is in the Bill because we believe that there might be circumstancesI have outlined some unlikely ones relating to cost, the census, or a situation in which a weak chief electoral officer was in postin which the Secretary of State might wish to exercise it. In normal circumstances, I do not envisage that any Secretary of State would refuse such a request from a chief electoral officer.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister is doing his best to try to find reasons why the Secretary of State may refuse to allow a census. However, his last example concerned the weakness of the chief electoral officer. Is the Secretary of State likely to give such a public explanation, especially as the relevant provision allows him to dismiss the chief electoral officer if he is not fit for office? If he was weak and not fit for the job, the public would ask why he had not been dismissed.

David Hanson: I am trying to be helpful to all hon. Members. The provisions would be used in extremis. In normal circumstances, the chief electoral officer is independent of the Government and will make decisions and recommendations that will be acted on by the Government. However, there may be circumstances, a few of which I have outlinedI accept that hon. Members do not share my analysisin which the Secretary of State does not wish to accept the chief electoral officer's recommendation. If that is the case, it is in the public interest for the Secretary of State to defend the matter to the public at large, because the electoral officer can, if he wishes, make his recommendation public. It is contestable in the courts, and it can be argued in the public domain. The Secretary of State is accountable to the House for his decisions through discussion, debate and questions. Those are accountability issues. There may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State does not wish to accept a recommendation for an annual canvass by the chief electoral officer. If those circumstances arise, I imagine that there will be all hell to pay but, none the less, they could arise.

Mark Durkan: The Minister is talking about the independence of the chief electoral officer, yet there are provisions in the Bill that chip away at that independence, so he is not the final arbiter on any matter that is supposed to be within his competence. The Minister suggested that he could be weak and could undertake a registration exercise after being approached by the parties. The fact is, however, that in the past, Secretaries of State have moved election dates after an approach from parties. They have justified pursuing things that excluded other parties by saying that it was in the public interest. It never worked, and it was not right. Why are the Government trying to do it with this as well?

David Hanson: I am in danger of repeating my arguments. I am simply saying to all right hon. and hon. Members that the electoral officer has the integrity of the register at heart. Under clause 4, he is responsible for maintaining the register and its electoral integrity and, as part of that responsibility, he may wish to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for an annual canvass. However, there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State does not agree with that recommendation and wishes to override it. In extremis, such decisions may be made on financial grounds, on grounds relating to the census itself and for a range of reasons. I accept that I am pleading with the House in future to trust the Secretary of State, whoever they are, but their reasons for such decisions will undoubtedly be made public. They will be contestable in the courts, and they will be open to judicial review and to question in the House, so there is a safeguard if the provision is used in extremis.

Patrick Cormack: None of those things may happen, although they are possibilities. The Minister may rule out my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and me, but is he not  concerned that representatives from all the democratically elected parties who sit in this House and who take up their obligations as Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland are deeply disturbed? Has he not been persuaded to think again by the united voice of the SDLP, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists? He must engender confidence in Northern Ireland, which he manifestly has not got.

David Hanson: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. On a number of decisions I have not had the confidence of all the parties in this House, which is sometimes the nature of politics. As I have said, no one raised that concern in the consultation. I accept the concerns raised by hon. Members, and simply say that the power will be used only in extremis.

Laurence Robertson: In many hours of debate with the Minister, he has never failed to give way, and I appreciate his courtesy. Under clause 3, the chief electoral officer would make
	a recommendation in favour of a canvass being conducted in that year for the purpose of meeting the relevant registration objectives.
	Those objectives are listed in clause 4, and one of them is to ensure
	that every person who is entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it.
	That is an important reason to request that a canvass should take place, but the Minister is in effect arguing that there may be an overriding reason to prevent that register being accurate.

David Hanson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In extremis, the Secretary of State may find reasons to take that action, and I have tried to indicate to the Committee what they might be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has said, those reasons include a clash with the census, pressure from political parties and matters involving funding. Clause 4 allows, when responsibilities are determined, the chief electoral officer to ask the Secretary of State for an annual canvass. A future Secretary of State would decide not to accede to such a request only in extremis. However, I will not rule out the possibility that a future Secretary of State might make such a decision, in which case they would have to publish the reasons why, and such a decision would be open to both judicial review and the questioning of this House.

William McCrea: The Minister has put it on the record that nobody raised the matter in the consultation, but parliamentary debates take place in this House. When did the Minister tell the parties that this power was being given to the Secretary of State? When in discussions did he make that point clear to the political parties and allow them to react to it, because my hon. Friends cannot remember that happening?

David Hanson: In the consultation, we outlined how the electoral officer's role will be undertaken when we discussed the role of the Secretary of State and others. If hon. Members are unhappy with the proposals before the Committee, they can vote against them today and they can be raised in another place. Obviously, we will examine the points that have been made in today's debate. In my view, it is essential that the chief electoral officer has a role in determining when the annual canvass takes place. The chief electoral officer will make those recommendations, but in extremis there may be reasons why a future Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest not to undertake that canvass and rejects the request from the chief electoral officer.
	The professionals in this business are the chief electoral officer and his team. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, they have a duty under clause 4 to meet the objectives of ensuring that the register is accurate and not open to fraud. I believe very strongly that the integrity of the electoral register is paramount, because it is on that basis that I, and other hon. Members, speak in this House today. I understand hon. Members' concerns, but I do not believe that they are founded in the likely actions of any future Secretary of State.

Nigel Dodds: To sum up the Minister's position, he seems to be saying that if a recommendation from the chief electoral officer were to be rejected, the Secretary of State would have to explain to the public the public interest reason for that. Would not it be far better simply to drop this provision, so that if some extreme circumstances were to arise in future, the Secretary of State could come to the House to explain what they were and could take action at that stage? The Minister has singularly failed to give a good reason why this open-ended provision should be in the Bill.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that that is an alternative scenario that could equally well have been undertaken. However, I imagine that were the Secretary of State to do that at some point in the futurein 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014there would be an almighty row in this House, as there will be if the Secretary of State exercises the power under the Bill.
	I understand that I am asking hon. Members to give discretion to a future Secretary of State, but I believe and trust that any such Secretary of State will act with responsibility and will overrule a chief electoral officer only in extremis for reasons that are in the public interest and that he or she will have to defend.

Patrick Cormack: Having listened to what has been said, particularly by Northern Ireland Members from all parties represented in the House, is not the Minister prepared at least to say that he will discuss this with the present Secretary of State and that he will consider introducing amendments or have his colleagues do so in another place?

David Hanson: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a good parliamentary point. That type of discussion might well have occurred were we upstairs in Committee.
	Of course, I will be happy to look at the debate and reflect on what has been said, but I will continue to argue for the principle that I have put before hon. Members, because I do not believe that their fears about the extent of the role of the Secretary of State in terms of the electoral register and its compilation are justified. I commend the proposals to the Committee and ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendment should hon. Members force it to a vote.

Laurence Robertson: We have had another prolonged debate on an interesting subject and I should like to run through one or two points that have arisen.
	As other hon. Members have said, the previous consultations outside the House are not relevant. We are here to consider the Bill as legislators, and we are entitled to raise points that were not necessarily raised before.
	It is a recurring theme that Ministersnot this particular Minister, but the Governmentare becoming rather isolated on Northern Ireland business. Given that Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in this House, the Labour party is frequently the only party putting forward the ideas that appear in the Bill. No other party from either side of the House, including the SDLP, is supporting the Government on any issue. Only yesterday, the Government were isolated when a Northern Ireland order was discussed upstairs. Perhaps the Minister should go away and reflect on a number of issues, including that one.
	I was a little concernedalthough perhaps it should not have surprised mewhen the Minister said that if the chief electoral officer's recommendation were to be overridden, he would have the option of going public. Naively, I had assumed that the recommendation would have been made public in the first place. I would be happy for the Minister to intervene on me to clarify that matter. Perhaps I have missed the point, but I had assumed that the recommendation would automatically have been made public. It alarms me that that might not be the case. This will make the incestuous relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer, to which I referred earlier, even more dangerous than I had originally assumed. I shall need to reflect on that.

David Hanson: I should like to clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. The chief electoral officer may make his recommendation public, but he does not necessarily have to do so. It will be the responsibility of the chief electoral officer. He or she may make it public, or decide not to do so.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the chief electoral officer's recommendation need not be made public, and that it could be kept private[Interruption.] I hear the suggestion that there might be, in the Minister's own words, a weak electoral officer. Such an officer would surely be bound to keep his recommendations private.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when we look at the totality of the Bill, we see that the chief electoral officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State, dismissible by the Secretary of State, and overrideable and ignorable by the Secretary of State? The chief electoral officer will, as never before, be the Secretary of State's chief electoral officer. That is where the real weakness of the chief electoral officer will come from.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he seems to be suggesting that this is going to be a pretty low-grade job. I mean no disrespect to anyone who is about to hold the position of chief electoral officer, but they will not have much autonomy or influence.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend has teased out of the Minister an admission that is frankly horrifying. The chief electoral officer could go to the Secretary of State and say, Secretary of State, we need to do this, the Secretary of State could say, You go back where you came from. It is in the public interest that we do not do that, and none of us would ever know anything about it.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Lembit �pik: If we are honest, should we not admit that we have got ourselves into this mess because the Minister is trying to defend an indefensible position? The only way in which he could defend it honestly is by saying that he wants to give the Secretary of State the political wriggle room to make decisions about the electoral canvass in the political interests of a negotiation with one party or another. The chief electoral officer's objective guidance could therefore be overruled for reasons of political expediency, and everyone except the Minister feels that that would be very bad for democracy.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
	I return to the point I made earlier. The chief electoral officer will be able to make a recommendation in favour of a canvass being conducted in a certain year only
	for the purpose of meeting the relevant registration objectives.
	Those objectives include ensuring that
	every person who is entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it . . . that no person who is not entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it, and . . . that none of the required information relating to any person registered in a register is false.
	All those objectives seem reasonable to me. The chief electoral officer can make a recommendation in favour of a canvass being conducted only on the basis of those objectives. It worries me that the Secretary of State will be able to fall back on an overriding principle in order to cancel such a canvass. What could that principle be? My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) mentioned that the exercise would cost about the same amount as a modest flat in London. I am not exactly with him on the property league. I think that a more appropriate indicator would be a cost of slightly more than 1 per elector in Northern Ireland, but perhaps I do not live in the same area as him.

Patrick Cormack: I should have referred to a house, and not a flat.

Stephen Pound: Street.

Laurence Robertson: Where I come from, a street would be more appropriate.
	In any club that is owned by its members, the first duty of the secretary is to maintain a list of those members, as they will determine the rules and the way in which the club is run. Surely, the most important criterion of a democracy is an accurate register. The Minister is effectively saying, Okay, but in certain circumstances there are more important considerations. He now appears to disagree, but in that case, why does he not accept the amendments? They are not very revolutionary. I am not even suggesting that we should remove the phrase public interest. I am seeking merely to ensure that we relate those words to clause 4, which the Minister himself has proposed.

John Gummer: Before my hon. Friend loses the image of the secretary of a club, may I ask what kind of man would be secretary to a club in which he could be prevented from keeping an accurate register? Do not the Minister's words bring to my hon. Friend's mind the words monkey and organ-grinder?

Laurence Robertson: Perhaps monkey and peanuts come to mind; I do not know what the salary will be. Nevertheless, the person who takes on the job will read this debateI do not suggest that they will be listening to itand be somewhat alarmed. The Minister may have put off a few potential applicants. The job is going   to be a very low-grade job. The officer's recommendation on the canvass need not be made public and can be overridden, and the very important responsibilities that should go with the job will rest with the Secretary of State. This is a very low-grade job.

David Hanson: It is not a low-grade job, but an extremely important job that is vital to the democracy of Northern Ireland and which has at its heart integrity in the political process and the integrity of this House. Today's debate has concentrated on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State in extremis to examine reasons why, in the public interest, recommendations may or may not be made by the chief electoral officer. In the meantime, the job is an extremely professional and high-grade job, and I look forward to the post being filled following the retirement very shortly of Denis Stanley.

Laurence Robertson: It should be a high-grade, responsible job. The objectives of maintaining an accurate register are certainly extremely important. I would find it very surprising if the Secretary of State intervened to prevent a canvass that was recommended by the chief electoral officer. Given the importance, especially in Northern Ireland, of maintaining an accurate register, a vague term such as public interest should be defined in the Bill, or at the very leastI mean no discourtesy to the Ministerwe should be entitled to a better explanation of what it might mean and of what circumstances might be more important than the criteria listed in clause 4.
	It was not necessarily my intention at the beginning of the debate to press the amendment to a vote, but in the absence of an adequate explanation, I feel that we must do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	  
	The relevant registration objectives

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alan Haselhurst: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2Maintenance of the registers: Northern Ireland
	'(1) The 1983 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 10A there is inserted
	  10ZA Maintenance of registers: Northern Ireland
	(1) The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland must confirm annually the details of every voter registered in every household in Northern Ireland.
	(2) The form to be used for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order, but shall include
	(a) the details of all such persons registered in that household;
	(b) the ability for every voter to confirm their details by provision of their signature; and
	(c) the ability to amend the recorded information by requesting the removal of a person from the register or requesting an individual registration form to be sent to that particular address to allow another voter to be added to the register..'.

Lorely Burt: The new clause deals with voter registration. In the absence of an annual canvass, it proposes that the electoral officer should confirm the existing details of everyone on the register on an annual basis. Every 12 months, households would be sent a form containing the details of all members whose names appear on the electoral register, and they would have to sign the form to confirm that their details were correct. Household members who wanted their names removed from the register could request that it be amended accordingly; alternatively, people could tick a box to ask for a registration form to ensure that a new member of the household appeared on the register in future.
	Asking people to confirm or amend their details is a simple exercise and would mean that they would not have to reregister every year. In addition, a much more accurate picture of the state of the register could be compiled. Although we are minded to withdraw the new clause so that the Minister has time to reflect on the matter, we give notice that we will resubmit the proposal on Report.

Laurence Robertson: I shall be very brief. We have looked at the new clause and have some sympathy with it, as we were not able to make progress on the previous two sets of amendments. I do not want to detain the Committee, but we will consider the proposal in greater detail if it is resubmitted at a later stage.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for making it clear that she will withdraw the new clause. I feel that it revisits clause 2, which deals with the annual canvass; in essence, mailing households every year would amount to the same thing.
	The new clause would commit the CEO to undertaking an annual mailing to every household in Northern Ireland. Although that would not be an annual canvass of every individual, it would still amount to an annual canvass, by post, of every household. Earlier, the Committee agreed that there was no need to conduct an annual canvass, in part because of the cost implications.
	The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has estimated that it would cost some 300,000 to issue forms to all the households in Northern Ireland. That would cover the cost of the initial postingwhich by itself would cost 171,000 a yearthe reminder posting that is, sadly, always necessary in such cases, and the freepost envelopes that would also have to be provided. There would be no real benefit for electoral officers.
	Later clauses provide that electoral officers will be able to examine a range of other ways to keep the register up to date. For example, they will be able to refer to the utility companies and other sources, and clause 4 also allows them to look at any method of keeping the register up to date.

Lembit �pik: The Minister said that the provisions in the new clause would provide no real benefit for electoral officers, but the Bill means that there will be no direct connection with voters apart from the canvass to be held once every 10 years. The new clause is a way to prompt him to consider ways to reduce that span of time.

David Hanson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's logic about voter contact, but the Committeewith, for once, the unanimous support of members of the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and other partiesagreed that the annual canvass should be abolished, as provided by clause 2. There was no debate, and the decision was unanimous.
	The new clause proposes that every household be mailed every year, but that would replicate much of what the annual canvass was designed to achieve.

Laurence Robertson: I remind the Minister that we accepted clause 2 only on the basis that our amendments to clause 3 would be accepted. They would have provided the necessary checks and balances, but they were not accepted.

David Hanson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to stir up opposition; I am simply making the point that an annual mailing to households would in part replicate the work of the annual canvass. The chief electoral officer will have power to obtain information from public authorities and others to help him to meet the relevant registration objectives under clause 4. That will help him to track changes to the relevant circumstances of individuals, and he or she will be able to identify people who are not on the register but may be entitled to be included. He or she will also be able to track 16 and 17-year-olds.
	The new clause would be an additional burden, and I am grateful for the indication that it will be withdrawn, as it would replicate, in part, a provision that we are trying to remove.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his clear and appropriate response, although I cannot agree that our proposal would equate substantially to an annual canvass. While the electoral officer is trying to contact all the utility companies and to cross-reference and check all the information, I respectfully submit that it would be just as easy, under the new clause, to get a clear and accurate view of who is on the register, for the avoidance of fraud and to deal with important issues on which everyone in the Chamber agrees. The new clause is not untoward in terms of cost or effort in relation to the rewards that it would bring. We shall withdraw it, but we shall resubmit it on Report

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady cannot withdraw a new clause that she has not yet moved, and in the light of what she has said, it will not be moved.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	  
	Alteration of registers: pending elections

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 5, leave out lines 17 to 24.
	I shall not withdraw this amendment before I have moved it, and I apologise for any chaos and confusion that I caused my colleagues in the Chamber earlier. Through the amendment, we want to find out why a person who registers close to the date of a poll will be denied the opportunity to have a postal or proxy vote. Although we welcome the extension of the registration deadline, we do not see why a person should be denied that opportunity. There seems to be no real reason why personal identifiers cannot easily be checked and applications verified.
	The explanatory notes state that the date for registering will be set out in regulations, but it is likely to be 11 days before the poll. If it is merely a question of sending out ballot papers and having them returned on time, would it make any difference if the late registration deadline was set at, for example, 14 days before the poll? It would be helpful if the Minister could give us a full explanation of the policy decisions behind the clause.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue. Again, however, I am bowing to the will of the chief electoral officer, who has raised concerns with the Government about the potential for fraud if numbers of people registered in the late window; for example, he would not have time before polling day to verify personal identifiers on applications for postal votes. In that context, he has expressed concern about the risk of fraud in the absent vote process. The provisions to prevent individuals who register in the late window from applying for an absent vote reflect his advice to the Government.

Patrick Cormack: What about the public interest?

David Hanson: I did not overrule the chief electoral officer in that instance; I hope that that helps to meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
	The Government believe that the provisions will protect the integrity of the electoral register, while doing as much as possible to allow individuals to register much nearer the date of an election.I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady. I am taking advice from the professional officer who is paid to secure the integrity of the electoral register. He has expressed his view that if we accepted the amendments, we would open up the potential for fraud in the postal vote system.

Nigel Dodds: We welcome the extension of the period for late registration. Many people realise that they need to be on the register only when an election is called and canvassing begins. In addition to the existing identifiers and the fact that they will not be allowed an absent vote, what further safeguards will be required of people who seek late registration?

David Hanson: Individuals are allowed to register as normal, with the usual registration qualificationsthe three tests, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. There will be no change to that, except that they will be able to register up to 11 days before the election. When an election is called and candidates such as the hon. Gentleman or I knock on doors to ask, Will you vote for us? people often say that they are not on the register. Now, up to 11 days before the election, they can be on the register. That will assist the process. However, reducing the postal vote deadline from the present 14 days to 11 days would, in the view of the chief electoral officer, allow the potential for fraud. I bow to his advice on the matter. As I said earlier, we are anxious to maintain the integrity of the register. We propose a method of maximising participation while maintaining integrity.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, the proposed modification seems reasonable. If the chief electoral officer is unable to verify someone's identity within 11 days, that is fair enough, but will the Minister consider a move to a 14-day registration deadline? We are minded to withdraw the amendment, although it is beyond us why the Government cannot accept such a common-sense modification.

The Chairman: Order. At this stage the hon. Lady must be more than minded. Does she wish the Committee to agree to the withdrawal of the amendment?

Lorely Burt: Yes, Sir Alan. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: We now come to clauses 10, 11 and 12. In view of the notice given and the close relationship among these three clauses, I propose, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, to allow debate on clause 10 stand part to go wider over part 3, on the understanding that that will avoid repetitious debates on the other two clauses.
	Question proposed, That clause 10 stand part of the Bill.

David Hanson: I am grateful, Sir Alan, for that indication. If I may, I shall speak to clauses 10, 11 and 12 as part of the general debate. Unusually for a Minister, I shall in due course move that the clauses do not stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. If I may help the Minister, the correct procedure would be to vote against the clauses standing part of the Bill, rather than moving a separate motion.

David Hanson: As I say, Sir Alan, I find myself in an unusual position. It is not one in which I have found myself on the number of Bills that I have taken through the House as a Minister in different Departments. It is a strange place to find myself, but I hope that I can offer the Committee an explanation of the reasons for that.
	The Committee will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has tabled amendments to delete clauses 10 to 12, and consequential amendments to clause 31 and schedule 5 have also been tabled by the Government and will be considered later in the proceedings. It might be helpful, as I have said, if I set out the reasons why clauses 10 to 12 were included in the Bill on its introduction. They were included because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered it possible that an early election might help to facilitate a return to devolution in Northern Ireland. Obviously, the Government are very concerned to ensure that the Assembly returns to its rightful place as soon as possible, and we have considered different methods on a number of occasions to ensure that the Assembly is up and running in due course.
	On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend said that there was no specific intention to use the powers in the Bill, but simply a desire to have the power to introduce an early election provision if it became apparent that that was necessary. However, the Committee will be aware that, during the recess, post the debate on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic met in Armagh on 6 Aprilmy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were also present on that occasionto announce a possible new way forward to help facilitate the return of devolution. That matter has been well advertised. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday, to outline formally to the House the issues and ideas proposed on 6 April in respect of the potential for the return of devolution to Northern Ireland.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that we have not yet published the new Bill that will give effect to the proposals outlined by the Taoiseach and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and that the details will not be made available until the Bill is formally introduced shortly. However, in the light of the arrangements proposed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the recall of the Assembly on 15 May and the potential end date for that recall towards the end of Novemberfrom memory, I think that it is 24 Novemberthe procedural arrangements for calling an early election will not now be necessary. Therefore, I am happy that clauses 10 to 12 are no longer required. We want to delete them in due course, because we do not believe that they are necessary, given the new political framework proposed by my right hon. Friends. I also very much hope that the Assembly will return and that a new election, as originally envisaged when the Bill was introduced, will not now be needed, because there is a clearly identified framework.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I will give the Minister time to read his notes. Will he explain to the Committee in precisely what circumstances the Government envisaged that the date of the elections would need to be brought forward?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. He will know that there is a range of reasons why, following discussions with the parties, an early election may have been desirable on previous occasions. Again, I can speculate until the end of the sitting at 7 o'clock this evening about what those reasons might be. The point is that we included in the Bill the ability to hold an early election if one were needed because of the circumstances of political discussions on the attempt to restore the Assembly, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) wishes to happen as a matter of urgency. If an early election was needed as part of those discussions, we could have called one if the Bill was passed as drafted.
	Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement on 6 April, it is clear that the provisions for an early election will not be required, because we have recalled the Assembly for 15 May and set it a deadline of establishing an Executive, if possible, by 24 November, or thereabouts. I forget the exact date, but from memory I think that it is 24 November. We have said that if the Assembly is not restored by that date, there will be no election for the Assembly. So an early election is not necessary. The circumstances for an early election could have been myriad, and I will not speculate on what could have happened in discussions with the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP, or Sinn Fein, which is not present today.

Lady Hermon: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government were not brought under any pressure whatsoever by either Sinn Fein or the Irish Government to abandon plans for an early election?

David Hanson: I am sorry, but I could not quite hear the hon. Lady's point.

Lady Hermon: I am quite happy to repeat what I said. I want a clear assurance from the Minister that the Government were not brought under any pressure whatsoever by either Sinn Fein or, for that matter, the Irish Government to abandon plans for an early election.

David Hanson: The situation has changed dramatically. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Irish Government, with the response of the Taoiseach on 6 April, have put a different political complexion on the way in which the Assembly could be restored. The Government's prime objective is to restore the Assembly; that is what we want to achieve. We want to get the Assembly back up and running so that individuals, some of whom are in the Chamber today, can undertake their rightful role of deciding policy on issues to do with housing, culture, sport, planning, agriculture and other matters. That is the Government's objective.
	We did have an objective of having discussions with political parties, with the potential through the Bill of calling an early election if that was the way to unlock the difficulties that may have been faced. We are now in a different position and, because we do not want an early election, this set of clauses needs to be deleted from the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving me a reply to a question that I did not ask. May I just repeat the question for the third time? Were the Government brought under pressure by Sinn Fein or the Irish Government to abandon plans for an early Assembly electionyes or no?

David Hanson: I am certainly not aware of any pressure on those matters and the situation has changed politically.

Patrick Cormack: He wouldn't be, would he?

David Hanson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government's objective is to ensure that we get devolution back. When the Bill was published, the Government's proposals were to meet the parties, to have discussions with them and to have an outlook of reaching agreement with them to ensure that devolution came back. As part of the armoury of that machinery, an early election may well have been one of the issues that would have led to the unlocking of any impasse that might have been there. Now we have set a clear route in terms of 15 May, discussions, the potential election of an Executive, a deadline for that process and, at the end of that, no elections if an Executive is not formed. We are now in a different position, so I am in the unusual position of not voting for the clauses that we originally envisaged because circumstances have changed.

Nigel Dodds: Could not people, including Members of the House, easily take the view that the Government are making it up as they go along? They published the Bill on 16 February and now the Minister is telling the House that, by 6 April, everything had changed so dramatically that these provisions are unnecessary and redundant? Is it not the case that, within a very short time, the Government changed gear and completely changed their policy? People in Northern Ireland take the view that the Government are simply making it up as they go along.

David Hanson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint, but the Government are not making it up as they go along. They have the clear objective of restoring the Assembly so that he, if he is chosen by his party again, can do the job that I am currently doing on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland in running the Department for Social Development. My objective is to get rid of the power that I am exercising and to give it back to him. That is the clarity of the Government's position.
	We have looked at several methods of trying to get that position back, one of which was discussion with the political parties to try to ensure that we reached a conclusion on the restoration of the Assembly. Given that that does not appear to be workingthe discussions that we had initially showed that there were real obstacles to the political parties getting together to restore the Assembly through political dialoguewe have taken affirmative action through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with the support of the Irish Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to put definitive stakes in the ground on where we are with the restoration of devolution. I refer to 15 May, the end of November and a clear process of potential engagement to form an Executive in that window. That has changed the situation with regard to the Bill.
	Yes, there may well have been a U-turn and a change of policy, but the overriding objective of whatever track we took was to secure the hon. Gentleman in his place in the Assembly and to give him responsibility for issues for which direct rule Ministers are currently responsible. I would hope that he shares that objective.

Mark Durkan: We would love to take great comfort in the journey that these three clauses have made from being necessary as a contingency to being utterly redundant in a matter of weeks. If they had made that journey by going past the certainty of a restoration date and a known future election date for the Assembly, we could have taken such comfort, but, in the absence of such certainty, we cannot. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) has said, it seems that the Government are busking on this issue and hoping that whatever happens catches the eye of somebody who passes by.

David Hanson: Again, I am trying to offer some form of clarity to the House on behalf of the Government. We want to see the Assembly restored. We are happy to look at any method that will get the Assembly restored, because the rightful people to run the affairs of Northern Ireland are the people who were elected to that Assembly to do so; not me, who represents a seat in north Wales and who flies in and does a job on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland at that time, but ultimately flies out again. The people who are elected and have roots in that community should do that job. As I hope the hon. Member for Foyle recognises, we are looking at the best way to unlock the real gridlock problems that exist between political parties in restoring the Assembly.
	I am happy to look at any suggestions that will unlock that gridlock. There was a possibility of political talks, but they have proved difficult, for reasons that I fully understand with regard to confidence on the part of several parties in the current situation. In the absence of those talks, we have put a framework in place whereby we hope those issues can be resolved during the time scale of May to November. In the light of that time scale being put in place, the clauses are redundant. That is the simple fact of the matter.
	If people want to call that a U-turn or a change of Bill, that is fine. I am very unused to withdrawing clauses in a Bill that I supported only six or seven weeks ago in this Chamber on Second Reading, but that is the nature of Northern Ireland politics. Our overriding objective is the same: to restore the Assembly. That is why I commend the withdrawal of these clauses. The Government are looking at a different way of achieving the same objective to make sure that colleagues are back in government as soon as possible.

David Lidington: I am tempted to express the hope that the Minister's speech is the first of many occasions on which, on many different subjects across the span of Government, Ministers will come to the Dispatch Box to withdraw legislation that they have, until very recently, proposed. However, I have some sympathy for the plight in which the Minister finds himself.
	Several things are clear about the clauses. The power to bring forward the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly would have to be initiated by the Secretary of State and that would have to be taken forward by means of an order in both Houses of Parliament. If the Government have concluded that the Secretary of State is not, under any circumstances, going to want to exercise that power in the time frame that they had previously envisaged, such a power clearly becomes otiose and so there is no point in keeping it in the Bill.
	The political explanation seems to be that, when the Government started off their current political initiative in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this calendar year, they were over-optimistic in their hopes about what could be achieved within a short space of time. They hoped that, perhaps by now, they would have had agreement between the various Northern Ireland parties on the restoration of the devolved institutions. After all, there was open speculation in the media both in Northern Ireland and in the Republicand I think that it is fair to say that there were suggestions by Ministers themselvesthat either in Committee or on Report, we might be presented with proposals to change the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to accommodate changes that might by then have been agreed between the two Governments and the various political parties in Northern Ireland.
	Such a deal has clearly not taken place. We could debate today, albeit somewhat fruitlessly, the precise circumstances in which the power in clause 10 could have been used. We can reflect on the reasons why no agreement has been possible up until now. Some of the problems were of the Government's own making due to the proposals on terrorists on the run. The Independent Monitoring Commission report that was published earlier this year, which clearly showed that although republicanism was changing, it had not broken with criminality, made things more difficult for the Government. Ministers, and perhaps the Prime Minister especially, finally realised that the underlying mistrust was still deep and could not be overcome in a few weeks, which had perhaps been hoped for at the turn of the year.
	I remain of the view that the Government's initiative looking forward to November deserves support. I wish it well, and although I still think that the Government incline towards over-optimism, I hope that the optimism proves to be justified and that we will see the restoration of devolution later this year. In the meantime, my party and I will support the Minister in his recommendation that the clauses be dropped from the Bill.

Lorely Burt: We are glad to support the Government's proposal because we were worried about setting the election date by way of statutory instrument. That is a constitutional and democratic matter that should not be decided through secondary legislation. Members of the House and the other place should have the opportunity to debate fully the merits of such a move and table such amendments that Parliament considers necessary. We cannot allow the routine operation of democracy to be reduced to a short debate on the Committee corridor, which would deny the vast majority of hon. Members the opportunity to discuss such an important matter.

Lady Hermon: I will keep my remarks brief[Interruption.] With provocation from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), I might not keep my remarks so brief.
	I was disappointed that the Minister did not respond to an intervention in which I asked him about the response from not only the chief electoral officer, but the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, about the canvass proposed in clause 3. I am extremely worried that the Government and, in particular, the Northern Ireland Office, think that the election date for the 108-Member Assembly is somehow a movable feast. In the past, the Northern Ireland Office has changed the date of the election not just once but twice, and now, in a matter of weeks, it has changed its decision on a measure that was considered to be critical when the Bill received its Second Reading.
	On 13 March, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State accepted that there would be complaints about changing the date of the election. He said to the House:
	I need to be ready to move quickly if the circumstances are such that an early election is needed to cement success on the political front. That is necessary so that we do not face any obstacle.[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1172.]
	Is the Minister ensuring that clauses 10 to 12 are taken out of the Bill because the Government are preparing for failure, rather than success? [Interruption.] The Minister seems to be rather agitated. Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State justified bringing forward the Assembly election from the scheduled date in 2007 by saying that that would cement the success of the process.

David Hanson: I give the hon. Lady a full assurance that the purpose of the provision is not to anticipate failure in the political peace process outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have given a clear indication that the Government wish to restore the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Our chosen method was given in the Prime Minister's statement on 6 April, which was echoed by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful intervention.
	If we had the wisdom of knowing the contents of the emergency Bill that will be published tomorrow, that could change the complexion of the Bill and our debate. The Government constantly remind the people of Northern Ireland of the emphasis that they place on human rights. They introduced the European convention on human rights and made it part and parcel of domestic lawsomething of which I am enormously proud. The Minister will be well aware that protocol 1 states that the High Contracting Parties, which include the United Kingdom,
	undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly is a legislature, and it has full legislative powers when it sits and suspension is lifted. When I voted for the agreement, I voted for an Assembly with legislative, Executive and administrative powers. The British Government, who went to the difficulty of making the convention part of our domestic law, are beholden to uphold and respect its provisions. I urge the Minister to give the House an assurance that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office do not regard the date of the Assembly election as a moveable feast. On Second Reading, they said that it would be brought forward, but within a few weeks they withdrew that proposal.

Nigel Dodds: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Lady's view about not making the date of a democratic election a moveable feast. Will she reflect on the position that her party and its then leader, David Trimble, adopted regarding the Assembly election scheduled for May 2003? Her party was instrumental in ensuring that that election was delayed, primarily because its then leader feared the consequences if his policies were put to the people of Northern Ireland. Does she regret the fact that her party played a role in that manoeuvre?

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that election result. The Prime Minister, in his Harbour Commission speech of October 2002, made it clear that the Assembly election would not take place until after acts of completion. There were no acts of completion by the scheduled date, so the Assembly election did not go ahead. The then MP for Upper Bann did not have the power to take back the words that the Prime Minister had spoken in October 2002. I therefore thank the hon. Gentleman for his reminder.

Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Lady think, looking back on what happened in Northern Ireland, that a fear of election results dominated the situation? Let us not argue about whether or not we should have held elections. The argument was that they did not want the Unionist people to be heard. When they were heard, they did not like it so they decided to do away with the Assembly. We had nothing to do with the pulling down of the Assembly, as the hon. Lady well knows. The IRA conspiracy pulled down the Assembly.

The Chairman: Order. It might be helpful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) if I point out that the clause that we are discussing, whether or not it is retained, relates to the election date for the next Assembly. We have gone sufficiently far down memory lane.

Lady Hermon: You will definitely be on my Christmas card list, Sir Alan, for bailing me out so effectively.
	This Government have paraded their commitment to upholding human rights on the international stage and made the ECHR part of our domestic law. The ECHR contains a specific provision that there should be elections to a legislature at reasonable intervals, but it does not state that that should be at the whim of the State of Secretary. I hope that the Minister has listened to the point that the election schedule for 2007 for the Assembly should not be moved either earlier or later in any circumstances whatsoever.

Sammy Wilson: Now I understand why the Minister dug in his heels on the earlier clauses in this Bill. Once again, we are witnessing him engaging in a retreatwhen it comes to legislation, he has engaged in more retreats than some Trappist monks. The last time that he retreated, he ran away from a whole Bill, whereas this time it is only a few clauses.

David Hanson: When I listen, I get criticised; when I do not listen, I get criticised. Is that the duty of a Northern Ireland Minister these days?

Sammy Wilson: The retreat is an admission by the Government that their strategy on elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the restoration of theNorthern Ireland Assembly is in tatters. The Government were hoping that there would be a change of heart among the people of Northern Ireland, that the people would be prepared to see the Assembly up and running again and that the people would be prepared to trust Sinn Fein. They were therefore hoping to use those powers to call an early election to try to change the political composition of the Assembly at an early stage.
	I think that the fact that the Government are now retreating from these clauses indicates that they accept that had they attempted to call an early election, the result would have reinforced previous election results and my party would have again been the clear winners in the Unionist community. Nothing has been done to engender the trust that Sinn Fein should be admitted to government. I take heart from the Minister's retreat because, although we are not afraid of an election, it means that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government recognise that early elections to change the political landscape is a ploy that will not work.
	The Government have accepted our point that if trust does not exist, there is no point in calling another election. An interim arrangement for the Assembly is needed to start to build up that trust, which is what the Secretary of State and the Minister have agreed to do. I hope that SDLP Members will grab that opportunity and enter that interim arrangement and, knowing that we cannot have full blown devolution, seek the lowest common denominator that will allow local representatives in Northern Ireland to get back into doing some things locally.
	Although we would have had no difficulty with the clauses remaining, or indeed with the Government calling an election to the Assembly, the hard reality that the Government now face encourages us to believe that they have at least recognised that there has been no change in opinion in Northern Ireland as regards accepting Sinn Fein in Government. We are happy that they have decided not to pursue the clauses and have recognised that their strategy was folly.

Mark Durkan: We can all have much amusement at the Minister's expense as he stands before us to withdraw these three clauses, which were a necessary working requirement a short while ago and now do not fit with the different path that the Government are on. We can all poke fun and say that it shows a lack of strategy on the part of the Government. However, the reality for those of us who are here as Northern Ireland politicians and elected representatives is that there is genuine uncertainty and doubt about our capacity, competence and resolve to take and share responsibility together within the institutions to which we are elected. The Minister, in presenting the clauses a few weeks ago and now withdrawing them, is left as a victim of that uncertainty.
	As Northern Ireland Members, we need to remember that the biggest questions are not about who wanted early elections a few weeks ago and who may not want them now, but about whether we want to take the powers and responsibilities that we can take within a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive and within the north-south and east-west arrangements.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) suggested that the SDLP had to show whether we would go into these interim arrangements, which are short of full-blown devolution. We do not want to go into anything half-baked, nor will we go into anything on a half-hearted basis. We do not believe that the Government have gone far enough in what they have proposed, but we will take things as far as we can. We will go in with a positive mind and try to make fast progress towards the agreement; we will not go into any diversions or cul-de-sacs that anybody else might want. We need to remember that it is for the parties from Northern Ireland to address and resolve the biggest questions around election dates for the Assembly and the restoration of the Assembly, and for the Government to be supportive as we try to do so.
	Clause 10 disagreed to.
	Clauses 11 and 12 disagreed to.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Mr. Watts.]
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (HERTFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Watts.]

Charles Walker: I am grateful for being granted this opportunity to voice my concerns about the future of mental health services in Hertfordshire. As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, mental illness deserves our attention. For too long it has been overlooked and it has suffered in comparison with the more emotive and better understood diseases. However, mental health problems will afflict one in five of our constituents during their lifetime. For many, it will be a passing illness that can be treated and, thankfully, left behind. For others, however, it will be a life sentence both for themselves and their families.
	In Hertfordshire, we are lucky to have an excellent mental health trust that does incredible work in supporting people with mental health problems. The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust makes a real difference to the quality of people's lives. However, recent demands for budget cuts are casting a long shadow over the trust and its ability to deliver critical services to the community that it serves.
	At the start of this year, the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust was informed that it had to make a year-on-year saving of more than 5 milliona figure that equates to just over 5 per cent. of its annual budget. To put it another way, based on the figures that the Minister gave the House yesterday, it represents 30 per cent. of the total savings being demanded from mental health trusts across the country. The trust was told that the saving was required as part of its contribution to meeting an overspend in the wider Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire health economy. That overspend is estimated to be close to 100 million.
	The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has played no part in creating that deficit. It has lived within its means since its inception in 2001. It has managed its budget efficiently and delivered value for money. Not unreasonably, one might be forgiven for thinking that that is the sort of financial performance that should be rewarded and held up as an example of best practice across the NHS. Instead, the trust is being penalised by a severe budget cut of more than 5 million. What message does that send out to other trusts struggling to balance their books? Penalising them for the debts incurred by their more profligate neighbours will certainly not encourage them to behave in a fiscally prudent fashion.
	The scale of the cuts being asked of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust will have a severe impact on services across the county. In Hertfordshire, we face the following measures: closure of a 22-bed in-patient mental health ward; a reduction in direct-action psychology services; a reduction in day services; closure of the early-intervention psychosis service; reductions in the staffing for community mental health teams; the closure of an acute day treatment unit; staff reductions in mental health in-patient therapies; a reduction in services for people with alcohol and mental health problems; the closure of a day care unit that supports older people with mental health problems and their carers; a reduction in staff working in child and adolescent mental health services; and a reduction in support for people with learning difficulties. In total, those cuts could lead to more than 70 job losses and have an impact on more than 10,000 service users across the county. The services scheduled for cuts are not nice-to-haves on the periphery of the trust's offering; they are absolutely critical to many of their users.
	In the words of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust:
	Considerable anxiety is already being expressed across the organisation regarding the impact of the proposed savings targets, particularly from the clinical staff, and the consultant psychiatrists especially. The focus of this anxiety is that there will be an inevitable increase in clinical risk and potential harm, and an overall deterioration in service provision that would reverse the considerable progress made in Mental Health over the years since the closure of large institutions.
	Those concerns have been more forcefully raised by David Grayson, chair of the Hertfordshire Partnership Patient and Public Involvement Forum, who has gone on record as saying:
	The implementation of the proposed cuts will increase the suffering of service users and their carers, who will face increased risk of suicide and self-harm, longer recovery time, higher relapse rates and a greater reliance on carers who, due to their role, are already more susceptible to mental health problems.
	Viewpoint, a charity dedicated to improving mental health services in Hertfordshire, states:
	The proposed cuts are financially inept. By reducing the provision of community services, psychological services and early interventions, more people will become acutely unwell. This is highly expensive and will actually increase the financial burden on the NHS.
	Carers in Hertfordshire has written to say that
	the reduction in services will have an impact on care across the entire community. For unpaid family carers, the outcome will be devastating. With such drastic proposals, many carers could lose essential support and this could lead to a situation where carers reach breaking point.
	These are real concerns that are being expressed by organisations dedicated to the welfare of their community. There is already a deep understanding that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on patients and their families. Furthermore, the consultation paper surrounding the proposals almost entirely fails to recognise the additional burden that the cuts will place on carers. It ignores the possibility that many carers will have to give up work in order to support patients losing day care services.
	The cuts proposed for Hertfordshire's mental health services run contrary to the vision recently outlined in the Government consultation document entitled Investing in Your Mental Health. That blueprint for the future delivery of mental health services makes many useful suggestions. In particular, it highlights the need for more local care and support to be provided through community-based services. Importantly, the White Paper makes it clear that any reduction in acute beds is possible only as a by-product of effective community services rather than as a precursor to their development.
	In reality, what we have in Hertfordshire is the worst of both worlds. We are faced with the equivalent loss of 37 beds in St. Albans and Stevenage, with a corresponding cut in the very community-based services that were supposed to replace them. A briefing note circulated by the joint commissioning trusts to Hertfordshire primary care trusts said that
	it is likely that there will be some dismantling of those baseline services which were needed to be in place to achieve the objectives of Investing In Your Mental Health.
	That point is picked up by Jonathan Freedman, chair of the Beds and Herts local medical committee, who states that
	the swathes of cuts through the predominantly community-based, mid-tier, support services for patients with mental health problems are completely contradictory to the proposals in the Government's White Paper.
	He goes on to say:
	the LMC strongly rejects the degree of cuts listed because they will impact so severely on a particularly vulnerable group of patients who are often in no position to object. The impact on families, carers and children of patients suffering with mental health problems will be immeasurable.
	What we face in Hertfordshire is the closure and scaling back of vital services. Inevitably, in cases in which services are retained in a reduced state, the threshold for acceptance will need to increase. As a result, many people will be denied access to hospital beds, and hundreds more service users will no longer be able to receive secondary care from community mental health and drug and alcohol teams. Inevitably, those people will fall back on already stretched GP surgeries.
	In my constituency there is no spare capacity for the provision of counselling and support services. Completely separate from the cuts proposed for the Herts partnership trust, our PCT, South East Hertfordshire, is seeking to scale back counselling services provided in GP practices in the south of the borough.
	When we look at what is being asked of the Herts partnership trust, it appears that the suggested cuts have been taken in isolation and not as a whole. There is little evidence that the knock-on effects attached to cutting middle-tier community-based support services have been adequately considered. It seems that at every turn these cuts are being driven by accountants not clinicians. In the words of Young Minds, a national charity that focuses on the mental health of children and also has operations in my constituency,
	the cuts proposed will materially affect the mental health and wellbeing of the most vulnerable children and young adults in the short, medium and long-term and will have a detrimental affect on their families and communities.
	I fail to understand how the cuts can be justified. How is it possible for someone who is in need of hospital admittance one day to be no longer eligible the next? How can it be less important to help young people tackle psychosis this year than next year? Why has the importance of helping people manage and beat their alcohol addictions suddenly diminished at a time when alcoholism is a growing menace and we have 24-hour drinking in many of our communities?
	I urge the Minister to look into the issue that I have raised. I accept that the NHS is not a bottomless financial pit and that tough decisions need to be taken. However, it is simply not right that a well-run and responsible mental health trust is being penalised for the financial difficulties of others. The iniquity of the situation demands attention. I know that the Minister has an extremely difficult job to doa job that requires her to balance many competing demands. As this Government rightly recognise, however, mental health deserves special attention. Although things have got better, we still live in an age where mental illness is misunderstood and too often feared. The cuts that I have highlighted will further isolate those afflicted by terrible illnesses that can act as life sentences with no remission.
	The cuts being put forward in Hertfordshire will penalise young and old alike. Children and adolescents will be denied access to services that can change their life prospects. Those trying to come to terms with catastrophic events in their lives will have nowhere to turn. Many carers will be left without support and hope. People in need of hospital treatment might find the door shut.
	Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has delivered above and beyond the call of duty. Its success deserves to be recognised and rewarded.

Oliver Heald: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being in the Chamber when he began his remarks, which was a little earlier than I had anticipated. Does he agree that cutting early intervention services, which are vital in tackling severe mental illness, would be a grave mistake and completely against the whole approach that the Government have been setting out in recent years? It is a denial of the modern approach that we want in mental health.

Charles Walker: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, who is well known in his constituency for championing the plight of those with mental health problems. The cuts proposed in the consultation document are at odds with Investing in Your Mental Health, and I am sure that the Minister will address that in her comments.
	To conclude, I hope that the Minister will feel able to intervene at this late stage to help to ensure that common sense and compassion prevail in this case.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate on the funding and provision of mental health services in Hertfordshire. At the beginning of his speech, he set out clearly the importance of having good mental health services and the wide effect on society, given the number of people who are likely to suffer from mental health problems. I thank him for acknowledging that the Government have recognised that mental health needs special attention. That is why we have made it one of the Department's top three priorities.
	I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all NHS staff in Hertfordshire, and especially those who have worked in mental health services. We have seen a real step change in the delivery of mental health services in recent years, which has required a real commitment from the NHS staff who deliver those services, many of whom I have met during my time as the Minister with responsibility for mental health services. This is an area in which we need staff to take an open view about some of the changes that have occurred. I have been incredibly impressed by the way in which those changes have taken place and the commitment and hard work of all those who work in our mental health services.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that there has been a massive increase in investment in the NHS overall in the past few years, including in his area. For example, his South East Hertfordshire primary care trust has received more than 155 million in the past financial year, which will rise to more than 209 million in 200708. Collectively, the eight primary care trusts in Hertfordshire received allocations in excess of 858 million in 200506, which will rise to 1.1 billion in 200708an increase of about 28 per cent. The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust's total increased investment in its mental health services is 4.2 million over and above inflation for the three-year period from 2003 to 2006.

Charles Walker: I appreciate that the increase is 4.2 million over and above inflation, but Hertfordshire is being asked to save 5.2 million. What has been given with one hand over the past three years is now being taken away, with interest, by the other. That is where a great deal of the concern lies.

Rosie Winterton: I will come to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. First, let me put what he has said in the context of some of the changes that have taken place.
	There are now some six assertive outreach teams with about 50 staff, compared to 29 staff in 2001. Six crisis assessment and treatment teams operate across Hertfordshire, compared to none in 2001. Those teams saw nearly 2,000 people last year, some 300 of them from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and 1,200 were new clients. In the past, the vast majority of those patients would have been admitted to an acute mental health unit, but now they can be seen in the community. That kind of approach has reduced the need for in-patient beds.
	Members often tell the House that an in-patient ward or unit is closing. Sometimes our response should be Congratulations, because the closure probably means that people are being served better in the community. I think that that is an important aspect of the changes that have taken place in the delivery of mental health services. I accept, however, that today we are also discussing changes in the way in which early outreach teams may be offered in the future.

Oliver Heald: rose

Rosie Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Minister, and apologise again for being late.
	It is the question of whether people are treated in the community or in in-patient facilities that is most upsetting to campaigners against the cuts. I received a letter today from all the numerous organisations in Hertfordshire that oppose the cuts. The second point in the letter is as follows:
	The proposed cuts are . . . inept. By reducing the provision of community services, psychological services and early intervention, more people will become acutely unwell.
	How can the Minister justify that, given that it involves one of the three priority areas?
	Why did the Prime Minister not mention mental health during Prime Minister's Question Time? He mentioned cardiac care. Is this not the problemthat mental health is always the subject that is left out?

Rosie Winterton: I believe that our action in putting mental health up there as one of the three priorities is the reason for many of the changes that have taken place. I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman has saidfor instance, what he said about the early intervention teamand I shall say more about it later, but I would vigorously defend the record in terms of changes in mental health services, and the increased investment in those services over the past two years.
	When I met the chief executive of the trust yesterday, we discussed some of the changes. There have been significant reductions in spending on agency staff, and the trust should be congratulated on that. I believe that in 2003 some 3.1 million was spent per year on agency staff; that was reduced to 524,000 last year, owing to a successful policy of recruitment to vacancies. Over the same period, spending on agency nursing staff was reduced from 2.2 million to 1.1 million. The trust now employs 506 psychiatric nurses62 per cent. more than in 2001and 75 consultant psychiatrists, 78 per cent. more than in 2001.
	It is also proposed that some 350,000 be invested in a primary care counselling service modelthe hon. Gentleman referred to the need for more counselling services. That will offer a range of therapeutic interventions for those with mild to moderate mental health problems. If this model, which is currently out for public consultation, is supported, it is anticipated that it will reduce demands on community mental health teams and referrals to psychiatrists. In addition, the trust has improved work force efficiency by cutting staff turnover.
	As I said, there have been some very impressive improvements in the delivery of local services, along with increased investment. But it is true that the health economy in Hertfordshire as a whole faces financial challenges, and that some tough decisions have to be made to address the situation. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that organisations get a grip on of the problems that have built up. The task of commissioning mental health services in Hertfordshire falls to the joint commissioning partnership board, which includes representatives from Hertfordshire PCTs and Hertfordshire county council. Each organisation contributes to a pooled budget.
	Hertfordshire PCTs have asked all providers in the area to make expenditure savings, and as the hon. Gentleman said, Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has been asked to make a 5 per cent. saving, which is the same as that being asked of all local providers. Decisions on where to ask the trust to make these savings were not taken lightly. At a special meeting of the joint commissioning partnership board on 16 February, it was faced with the very difficult task of considering where such savings could be made. It took a strategic overview of service provision, to ensure that the impact on patient services was kept to a minimum. Having considered the various options, it agreed a proposed list of savings totalling some 3.2millon, in addition to the 1.7 million-worth of internal efficiency savings already being made. Formal consultation on the proposed changes started on 20 March and will run until 3 May. It is important that Members encourage their constituentsas they doubtless willto engage as fully as possible in the consultation, to ensure that their views are taken into consideration.
	The hon. Gentleman set out some of the issues being considered during the consultation period that cause particular difficulties for those affected. However, it is important to recognise that strategic health authorities, trusts and PCTs need to work together to ensure that the whole health economy in a given area gets back on to a stable footing. I know from my conversations with them that NHS staff need to be reassured that the deficits that have built up over years will be sorted out. Uncertainty can affect both patients and staff, and decisions about how to proceed must be made jointly.
	The local NHS trust is currently discussing the proposed service changes with staff, and I know that every effort will be made to avoid redundancies. If necessary, and where possible, staff will be redeployed to different teams. Although it is proposed that the St. Julian ward should closeas I understand it achieving savings of some 1.4 million, of which 400,000 will be reinvested in community servicesI emphasise that the changes already introduced mean that more people are treated in the community, with the result that they receive attention earlier and do not have to go into patient care.

Michael Penning: The St. Julian ward is the only one in that part of Hertfordshire offering respite to carers whose loved ones are desperately ill. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the consultation process considers its proposed closure very carefully?

Rosie Winterton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the trust will be made aware of this debate, but I hope that he and the other Opposition Members present will agree that it is right for the local NHS to get back on an even keel. The proposed changes are subject to consultation: although difficult decisions will have to be taken, I assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that there is only minimum disruption to services and to jobs.
	As I have said, the work of the local NHS trust has been extremely impressive. These are difficult decisions, but I repeat that I have been assured that any disruption to services will be kept to a minimum, and that some of the savings will be reinvested in alternative provision.I understand how strongly some hon. Members feel about this matter, and hope that my remarks have helped to reassure them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock.